Forum Groups

 

Forums / Politics / Health Care passes

Health Care passes

40 posts
  1. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    6/28/2012 12:06 PM
    I'm surprised no one had commented yet on the Supreme Court's decision on the health care decision on the Affordable Care Act, did all of you jump off your roofs or something? (I was a little surprised also at no comments on the Arizona law either)

    Interesting how the media has mentioned in some cases it's good for President Obama and others look at it as bad for his re-election campaign.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  2. Peter Bowman
    Peter Bowman avatar
    11 posts
    6/28/2012 1:06 PM
    It was sold as not a tax. SCOTUS says it is a tax. Obama still says it's not.

    Do I have that right?



  3. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    6/28/2012 2:06 PM
    Peter Bowman, CGCS said: It was sold as not a tax. SCOTUS says it is a tax. Obama still says it's not.

    Do I have that right?


    Decide for yourself:

    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with
    respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be
    upheld as within Congress's power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–
    44.
    (a) The Affordable Care Act describes the "[s]hared responsibility
    payment" as a "penalty," not a "tax." That label is fatal to the appli-
    cation of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control
    whether an exaction is within Congress's power to tax. In answering
    that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,
    "[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its sub-
    stance and application." United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287,
    294. Pp. 33–35.
    (b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility
    payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The
    payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health
    insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penal-
    ties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by
    the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel
    Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that pay-
    ment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But
    the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is un-
    lawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches
    negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond
    requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress's choice of language—
    stating that individuals "shall" obtain insurance or pay a "penalty"—
    does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It
    may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insur-
    ance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174.
    Pp. 35–40.



  4. Peter Bowman
    Peter Bowman avatar
    11 posts
    6/28/2012 3:06 PM
    Sounds like a tax.



  5. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    6/28/2012 3:06 PM
    Okay, I won't argue if it is a tax. Most people will need health care eventually and if you do not have health insurance, others will have to pay for it. The penalty is the uninsured's contribution. I can live with that.

    [img">http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll284/scottcgcs/obamamandateokay.jpg[/img">



  6. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    6/28/2012 3:06 PM
    [youtube">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6DrH6P9OC0[/youtube">



  7. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    6/28/2012 4:06 PM
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: I'm surprised no one had commented yet on the Supreme Court's decision on the health care decision on the Affordable Care Act, did all of you jump off your roofs or something? (I was a little surprised also at no comments on the Arizona law either)

    Interesting how the media has mentioned in some cases it's good for President Obama and others look at it as bad for his re-election campaign.

    Mel


    Yeah, and no one mentioned that Holder has been held in criminal contempt.



  8. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    6/28/2012 5:06 PM
    Clay Putnam, CGCS said: Yeah, and no one mentioned that Holder has been held in criminal contempt.


    The House voted on this and it will die in the Senate. It has no real consequences unlike the Supreme Court Rulings Mel mentioned.



  9. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    6/28/2012 5:06 PM
    Clay Putnam, CGCS said:
    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: I'm surprised no one had commented yet on the Supreme Court's decision on the health care decision on the Affordable Care Act, did all of you jump off your roofs or something? (I was a little surprised also at no comments on the Arizona law either)

    Interesting how the media has mentioned in some cases it's good for President Obama and others look at it as bad for his re-election campaign.

    Mel


    Yeah, and no one mentioned that Holder has been held in criminal contempt.


    Hadn't heard it yet, I guess the other news was bigger? I guess another topic for discussion. Knew about the health care decision because some golfer came in complaining about it.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  10. Steven Kurta
    Steven Kurta avatar
    2 posts
    6/29/2012 4:06 AM
    .



  11. Steve Nelson
    Steve Nelson avatar
    0 posts
    6/29/2012 9:06 AM
    Mel, I think everybody is too busy to know or even care about politics right now. I've got 100 acres of kikuyu grass jumping out of the ground right now and haven't watched the news in a couple of weeks.



  12. Peter Bowman
    Peter Bowman avatar
    11 posts
    6/29/2012 9:06 AM
    Steve Nelson, CGCS said: Mel, I think everybody is too busy to know or even care about politics right now.


    And that's pretty much all Obama has going for him right now.



  13. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    7/2/2012 9:07 AM
    I ran to the store to get something for lunch. I listened to about five minutes of whoever is sitting in for Glenn Beck. He had a caller who said that he refinanced his house to cover experimental medical procedures performed on his daughter. He went on to say that this would no longer be possible with healthcare reform because the government would say that it is not "fair". The statement is obviously untrue, and probabaly on more than one level.



  14. Sandy Clark
    Sandy Clark avatar
    0 posts
    7/3/2012 9:07 AM
    Ok, for those of you that are happy about this remember this. Obama said several times people would not pay more and you could keep your own insurance if happy with it. He also said it was not a tax! 75% of all the taxes related to Obama Care will be paid by those making under $120,000 per year. Along with the so-called rich getting soaked, so will all of you. It is already being reported that surveys with business owners finds that right now, 35% will drop insurance and dump you into Obama Care. So much for keeping your own insurance. Business is not a charity. If they will profit more from dropping their plan and just paying the fine, guess which way they will go. I also must mention that with MediCare taking a $500+ billion cut and doctors being paid less, it will result in a shortage of doctors and reduced or rationed care. These are not scare tactics, they are the truth. Social Security is broke, MediCare is broke and if any of you think this massive program will stay within forecast, I have something better than a bridge to sell you. I will personally sell you all of California. Just make your bidding war checks out to me and I will cash all of them. You have to be living in an underground bunker with no computer, radio or tv to really believe this will make life better for everyone. The best chance for this program to work is for Obama and the Senate to lose and allow for a patient doctor based approach to be put in place, otherwise, this country will be Greece on steroids in a very few years. It is not good health care and it is totally unaffordable



  15. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    7/3/2012 7:07 PM
    [img">http://i291.photobucket.com/albums/ll284/scottcgcs/healthcareusa.jpg[/img">



  16. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    7/4/2012 7:07 PM
    [youtube">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAAwXhBhU4Q[/youtube">

    Thank you Andy Griffith!



  17. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    7/5/2012 10:07 AM
    And now he's dead............he'll never know will he?



  18. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    7/5/2012 11:07 AM
    David McCallum said: And now he's dead............he'll never know will he?


    Much of the law has already been implemented so it is possible that he benefited or had a family member who did. Medical students are getting financial assistance. They have added two new medical schools in Florida. Every state has received funds and dramatically increased their healthcare center capablilities. People with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage. It is estimated that health insurance providers will be rebating $12.1 billion this year because of the 80/20 rule. 4 million small businesses that were providing healthcare to their employees became eligible to take 35% of this expense off of their taxes. More people are eligible for Medicaid and the federal govt will pay 100% of the states' costs for the first three years then 90% after that. The law provided for reduced fraud returning over $2 billion the the Medicare Fund in 2009 alone.



  19. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    7/6/2012 9:07 AM
    Extremely happy that you are overjoyed with Obamadontcare



  20. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    7/6/2012 10:07 AM
    David McCallum said: Extremely happy that you are overjoyed with Obamadontcare


    "Obama don't care"? That is brilliant!



  21. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    7/9/2012 6:07 AM
    One of the side affects of the passage of obamadontcare is that the court ruled that the governement does not have the right to force expansion of Medicaid on the states. This opens a possible can of worms down the road. The trial lawyers are drooling thinking of the possibilities. It is the first time since the 1930's that the Court has invalidated a federal spending statute that gives money to states with strings attached. Over the years Congress has passed many laws that were forced down the throats of many states with a mandate of "do as we say or you will lose all federal funding". Now all of a sudden things change. Two things taht come to mind immediately are highway funds and of course education funds. The ole 'my way or the highway' may be out the door when the lawyers get through dragging this through the court system all the way to the guy who ruled 5-4 in favor of obamadontcare. Just food for thought for the left to chew on.



  22. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    7/9/2012 7:07 AM
    David,

    I am curious of your thoughts on your gov. who said he isn't going to take the Medicaid money for expanding Medicaid. The federal government is going to pick up 100% then down to 90% to expand it.

    Of course the idea from as I understand it, it raises the income level for those to receive medicaid, so those making minimum wage get health care, something they couldn't afford to buy themselves and most likely if getting paid that, they are working for some small employer who wouldn't have the 50 employees needed to get health care through an employer based plan, (by the way I wonder what the real cost of that would be to those size employers? Can't they just choose a plan for their employees and pass that cost onto them? I know I pay the full amount for my wife and son, while my employer pays 100% for me, other places I've worked they pay a portion of the premium and we do as well).

    So it seems those people that could qualify for the new medicaid rules will continue to go without preventive health care and only end up at emergency rooms and we all know who is paying for that, those with health insurance.

    I know a couple of other states including my own are saying the same thing. I of course don't think it's a smart move, more politically motivated, and of course the people who can least afford it are the ones who get hurt the most. It some way I see it as these governors and states are not serving the all the people of their state. Just my opinion.

    As for your observation of other federal money, I guess could the question be, take the federal government out of the road building and maintenance business and leave those funds at the state level? I'm sure there will be more questions coming out of it.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  23. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    7/9/2012 7:07 AM
    David is writing from "the sovereign state of Louisiana" where they have been telling the federal government to shove it for 150 years. I have been there a few times and I see no evidence that they receive any funding for roads and highways at all. The hospitals, related professionals and business people who are footing the bill of all of these patients they cannot turn away are not going to put up with the governors' temper tantrums for very long. They will take the money.



  24. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    7/9/2012 10:07 AM
    Mel
    I have no idea what his thought process was about the decision. Unlike Scott I do think he will continue to take whatever our poportion is currently and not expand medicaid services. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. And I must agree with Scott on roads but that was not my reference in the first post. Anything south of I-10 is the most difficult place to build a road in the US. Extrmemely high perched water tables, soil constantly shifting and settling. A mile of road in La cost 5x maybe 10x the cost in a Texas, New Mexico, Arizona where the road bed is naturally rock. The point of roadway funds was a reference to La being told unless the drinking age was raised we would lose all US matching funds. We were the last state to raise the legal age from 18 to 21. Old enough to fight and die but not to buy a beer. And speaking on education mandates from the feds, well that could be a whole topic in itself.



  25. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    7/9/2012 10:07 AM
    David McCallum said: Mel
    I have no idea what his thought process was about the decision. Unlike Scott I do think he will continue to take whatever our poportion is currently and not expand medicaid services. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. And I must agree with Scott on roads but that was not my reference in the first post. Anything south of I-10 is the most difficult place to build a road in the US. Extrmemely high perched water tables, soil constantly shifting and settling. A mile of road in La cost 5x maybe 10x the cost in a Texas, New Mexico, Arizona where the road bed is naturally rock. The point of roadway funds was a reference to La being told unless the drinking age was raised we would lose all US matching funds. We were the last state to raise the legal age from 18 to 21. Old enough to fight and die but not to buy a beer. And speaking on education mandates from the feds, well that could be a whole topic in itself.


    David, I remember the road/drinking age issue, I was living in Florida and got grandfathered as the last group that could buy at 18, 19 etc. I wasn't happy about that either, must have been because dad was military, it made me feel that way. Also thought it wasn't fair to hold the states hostage, hey who was president at that time?

    Although I wonder what impact it had on society itself, if there were less kids getting killed drinking while driving? Of course now a days with the lower legal blood-alcohol limit, in the long run both are probably a good thing.

    Speaking of educational mandates, who was president when NCLB was passed? And what president and administration is allowing waivers to states if they have come up with addressing the issues NCLB was suppose to fix? But your right that is another topic itself.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  26. Jon Gansen
    Jon Gansen avatar
    1 posts
    7/9/2012 5:07 PM
    Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/09/repor ... z20AQoLhbl



  27. Keith Lamb
    Keith Lamb avatar
    3 posts
    7/9/2012 5:07 PM
    According to a recent survey, 33 of the people say they participate in surveys.



  28. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    7/9/2012 6:07 PM
    Even with so many new medical schools opening and enhanced financing it is still practically impossible to get a slot as a med student. Scare tactics from the right are certainly nothing new.



  29. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    7/10/2012 6:07 AM
    Perhaps in some places but does not seem to be the case in La........one of my members ( a doctor) has 3 sons, all one year apart and all three are currently in med school.........those 3.8 and 4.0 gpa seem to move you right to the top of the list........hard work still pays off.



  30. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    7/11/2012 7:07 AM
    Jon Gansen said: Report: 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting over Obamacare

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/09/repor ... z20AQoLhbl


    I wonder what they plan to do for a living then?

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

View or change your forums profile here.