SCOTUS Ruled Obamacare Raised Everyone's Taxes: Will Decision Hurt Obama 2012 Re-Election?
Fef
2012/06/28 14:27:41
|
|
|||||
|
136 votes
|
|
68% | ||
|
18 votes
|
|
9% | ||
|
47 votes
|
|
23% | ||
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) just ruled that the "Individual Mandate" clause of the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare") raise taxes on everyone. The SCOTUS ruled the Individual Mandate Unconstitutional in relation to the Constitution's Commerce Clause -- but ruled it Constitutional as a tax increase.
President Obama promised he would not raised taxes on the working class, the middle class or the poor. Obama's 2012 re-election campaign may have suffered its greatest setback because now Obama has to answer this contradiction to the public, media and Moderates.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a Conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, decided the swing vote and wrote the court's opinion. Roberts joined the Liberal justices in the decision. President Obama may again blame George W. Bush...
President Obama promised he would not raised taxes on the working class, the middle class or the poor. Obama's 2012 re-election campaign may have suffered its greatest setback because now Obama has to answer this contradiction to the public, media and Moderates.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a Conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, decided the swing vote and wrote the court's opinion. Roberts joined the Liberal justices in the decision. President Obama may again blame George W. Bush...
Top Opinion
-
SCOTUS Hurts Obama 2012
+20Democrats will regret the day... SCOTUS decision will renew Tea Party and upset Moderates. Call it Death Panel for Obama 2012
One, not trying to get "govt run health care", wish it was available, but it is not. Are you talking about the insurance I buy for my kids? I buy their policies, individual policies. One of my children has a pre existing condition, so before the health care reform bills portion went into effect for kids last Sept, I would have been unable to buy a policy for my daughter. She was denied, due to that pre existing condition. She was then covered under her dads insurance, so we were ok till the bill went into effect.
Me? I am a retired firefighter, broke my back on the job... and that is considered a pre existing condition. So I have been w/out insurance for 6 years. Had insurance, but rates kept increasing for retirees, to an outrageous rate, and I had to drop it. So, when I tried to buy a policy outside the citys network, that is $1067/month for me alone..) I was denied due to pre existing condition. You may be thinking work comp would pay, right? They are supposed to pay for my back care, nothing else.... and have refused w/out me paying another attorney to even get that care, so I go without. Again, that would only be care for the back, nothing else.
Working for the vet is barely anything... they cut my pay 75% years ago, when everyone ...
One, not trying to get "govt run health care", wish it was available, but it is not. Are you talking about the insurance I buy for my kids? I buy their policies, individual policies. One of my children has a pre existing condition, so before the health care reform bills portion went into effect for kids last Sept, I would have been unable to buy a policy for my daughter. She was denied, due to that pre existing condition. She was then covered under her dads insurance, so we were ok till the bill went into effect.
Me? I am a retired firefighter, broke my back on the job... and that is considered a pre existing condition. So I have been w/out insurance for 6 years. Had insurance, but rates kept increasing for retirees, to an outrageous rate, and I had to drop it. So, when I tried to buy a policy outside the citys network, that is $1067/month for me alone..) I was denied due to pre existing condition. You may be thinking work comp would pay, right? They are supposed to pay for my back care, nothing else.... and have refused w/out me paying another attorney to even get that care, so I go without. Again, that would only be care for the back, nothing else.
Working for the vet is barely anything... they cut my pay 75% years ago, when everyone else was laid off. I stayed on, because 25% of my pay is better than none at all. So, I have my own very small business making the blends and doing the sessions... and this helps me make the ends meet at the end of the month... sometimes. Many times not. I spent my last $200 last week to fill up the tank, pay for all my daughters prescriptions co pays...(nearly $100 for those alone every few weeks) and bought some groceries with the rest. I have $7 in my checking account today.
So, am I living high on the hog? No. Not at all. But, doing my damnedest to make ends meet here. Trying to sell my bed so I can put it towards the electric bill due. Yes, things are tight.
Of course the Supreme Court decision will help Obama...more people will now see that what Obama sets out to do, he gets done. People like that...people like a winner!
1. A temporary, two-year halt to deportation of certain illegal individuals under the age of 30...
2. Three out of four Arizona anti-immigration statutes eliminated...
3. The Healthcare Plan remains essentially intact...
What's needed to make this an all-around good year for the President?
Re-election, of course!
BTW...the headline is wrong...the Supreme Court did not rule the Healthcare Plan "raised everyone's taxes"...the ruling, according to Chief Justice Roberts, said that it can "be read as a tax." And, in contrast to the above headline, the ruling will not increase "everyone's" taxes.
"The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.— Chief Justice Roberts
This is one of the most significant steps forward an American President has ever moved this nation, and although it will undoubtedly make it tough for Health Insurers CEOs to buy another private jet with only $30 million a year instead of $31 million a year, saving the lives of 30 million Americans would seem to be a lot more important.
How heartless does someone have to be to support letting American citizens die just so corporate profits can be increased?
affects 7 % ? 7 % may benefit from this ,,
but it affects the other 93 % also,
especially the 53 % of Americans that pay taxes.. this is going to be expensive, and it will not be free, some one always has to pay... and it is the 53 % of Americans that pay taxes that will be stuck with the bill, you ( assuming you pay federal income tax. ) me , my children, your children, our grand children.. and it goes on and on and on
so , to think it only affects 7 % is a little miss leading... IMO
And speaking just on a personal level, if it costs me another $10 a week to save the lives of 30 million of my fellow Americans, I don't mind paying it.
not sure about your location, but the hosipotals here in Pittsburgh, Pa. have to treat emergency room patients and eat it .. it costs the other paying customers / patients , not the tax payer... and they treat the emerg. room like a day care, it is so bad in the inner city , they have metal detectors to try to keep the weapons out, they have armed gaurds at the entrance and also in the waiting room...
as to a $ 10 / week , for what ever cause you chose, I support you, and I do a similar
( although a lot more than $ 10 ) but I do it voluntary , not a mandatory take my money to give to some one else that choose a life style and spends $$ on leisure and / or pleasure and treats health care as an entitlement that some one else pays for it...
I was not actually trying to claim that the cost would literally be $10 a week, rather that if in fact my personal costs go up in order to help out millions of other people I don't have a problem with that. But the point is that now that the law has been upheld "your" money will not go to someone living a life of leisure. That person will have to get health insurance or pay the penalty. I'm not sure who you're talking about with the "lesiure" reference.
am I missing some thing ?
are those that are receiving med. care now and not paying and borne by others all of a sudden going to dissapear ?
and now that we have the obomma care going " forward " , and the gov't oversee the administration of the previous uninsured , I feel , IMO, this is going to go from bad to worse..
I can not think of one gov't enterprise, authority , branch , that runs as well as the private industry does..
so, the ones that did not have insurance before, are now going to either pay a penalty or get insurance , or,, and this is what I think will happen. the gov't will take from the 53 % that pay taxes and put it in the kitty for those that do not / did not pay before and will not pay now..
I hope I am wrong , and you are correct on this " obommacare " but I do not have any confidence in the federal gov't to be able to handle this.
?? to you , in relation to the gov't running things...
when was the last time the federal gov't passed a budget , not a ballanced budget , but any ole budget ?
by law , they are to have one each and every year ..
look what the federal gov't does to our Vet's when they are wounded .. the V A hospital is a mess... and this is what they do to their own,, what do you think they arre going to do ...
am I missing some thing ?
are those that are receiving med. care now and not paying and borne by others all of a sudden going to dissapear ?
and now that we have the obomma care going " forward " , and the gov't oversee the administration of the previous uninsured , I feel , IMO, this is going to go from bad to worse..
I can not think of one gov't enterprise, authority , branch , that runs as well as the private industry does..
so, the ones that did not have insurance before, are now going to either pay a penalty or get insurance , or,, and this is what I think will happen. the gov't will take from the 53 % that pay taxes and put it in the kitty for those that do not / did not pay before and will not pay now..
I hope I am wrong , and you are correct on this " obommacare " but I do not have any confidence in the federal gov't to be able to handle this.
?? to you , in relation to the gov't running things...
when was the last time the federal gov't passed a budget , not a ballanced budget , but any ole budget ?
by law , they are to have one each and every year ..
look what the federal gov't does to our Vet's when they are wounded .. the V A hospital is a mess... and this is what they do to their own,, what do you think they arre going to do for you and I ??
and one last thing to ponder ... how many special interest groups have petitioned the gov't to exempt them selves from the provisions of the obommacare ,, does congress abide by obomma care ?
Second, the Constitutionality of the mandate was not really a serious challenge. Mandates have been enacted all the way back to George Washington and the Second Militia Act of 1793. You have to have auto insurance to drive a car. That's a mandate. You have to pay income taxes each year. That's a mandate. In times of war you may be forced to serve in the military. That's a mandate.
Also there should no be a penalty about choosing to not do something. Perhaps that is just my own moral compass driving my thoughts, but it is what I beleive. I do not want someone telling me how to live my life.