Supreme Court upholds individual mandate - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

Supreme Court upholds individual mandate

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:29 am

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld virtually all of President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul, including the hotly debated core requirement that nearly every American have health insurance.

The 5-4 decision meant the huge overhaul, still taking effect, could proceed and pick up momentum over the next several years, affecting the way that countless Americans receive and pay for their personal medical care.

The ruling hands Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in approving the plan. However, Republicans quickly indicated they will try to use the decision to rally their supporters against what they call "Obamacare," arguing that the ruling characterized the penalty against people who refuse to get insurance as a tax.

Obama declared, "Whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country."  GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney renewed his criticism of the overhaul, calling it "bad law" and promising to work to repeal it if elected in November.

Breaking with the court's other conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts announced the judgment that allows the law to go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Roberts explained at length the court's view of the mandate as a valid exercise of Congress' authority to "lay and collect taxes." The administration estimates that roughly 4 million people will pay the penalty rather than buy insurance.

Even though Congress called it a penalty, not a tax, Roberts said, "The payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation."

Roberts also made plain the court's rejection of the administration's claim that Congress had the power under the Constitution's commerce clause to put the mandate in place. The power to regulate interstate commerce power, he said, "does not authorize the mandate. "

Stocks of hospital companies rose after the decision was announced, while shares of insurers fell sharply. Shares of drugmakers and device makers fell slightly.

The justices rejected two of the administration's three arguments in support of the insurance requirement. But the court said the mandate can be construed as a tax. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," Roberts said.

The court found problems with the law's expansion of Medicaid, but even there said the expansion could proceed as long as the federal government does not threaten to withhold states' entire Medicaid allotment if they don't take part in the law's extension.

The court's four liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined Roberts in the outcome.

Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Kennedy summarized the dissent in court. "In our view, the act before us is invalid in its entirety," he said.

The dissenters said in a joint statement that the law "exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting states all Medicaid funding."

In all, the justices spelled out their views in six opinions totaling 187 pages. Roberts, Kennedy and Ginsburg spent 51 minutes summarizing their views in the packed courtroom.

The legislation passed Congress in early 2010 after a monumental struggle in which all Republicans voted against it. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Thursday the House will vote the week of July 9 on whether to repeal the law, though such efforts have virtually no chance in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

After the ruling, Republican campaign strategists said Romney will use it to continue campaigning against "Obamacare" and attacking the president's signature health care program as a tax increase.

"Obama might have his law, but the GOP has a cause," said veteran campaign adviser Terry Holt. "This promises to galvanize Republican support around a repeal of what could well be called the largest tax increase in American history."

Democrats said Romney, who backed an individual health insurance mandate when he was Massachusetts governor, will have a hard time exploiting the ruling.

"Mitt Romney is the intellectual godfather of Obamacare," said Democratic consultant Jim Manley.  "The bigger issue is the rising cost of health care, and this bill is designed to deal with it."

More than eight in 10 Americans already have health insurance. But for most of the 50 million who are uninsured, the ruling offers the promise of guaranteed coverage at affordable prices. Lower-income and many middle-class families will be eligible for subsidies to help pay premiums starting in 2014.

There's also an added safety net for all Americans, insured and uninsured. Starting in 2014, insurance companies will not be able to deny coverage for medical treatment, nor can they charge more to people with health problems. Those protections, now standard in most big employer plans, will be available to all, including people who get laid off, or leave a corporate job to launch their own small business.

Seniors also benefit from the law through better Medicare coverage for those with high prescription costs, and no copayments for preventive care. But hospitals, nursing homes, and many other service providers may struggle once the Medicare cuts used to finance the law really start to bite.

Illegal immigrants are not entitled to the new insurance coverage under the law, and will remain one of the biggest groups uninsured.

Obama's law is by no means the last word on health care. Experts expect costs to keep rising, meaning that lawmakers will have to revisit the issue perhaps as early as next year, when federal budget woes will force them to confront painful options for Medicare and Medicaid, the giant federal programs that cover seniors, the disabled, and low-income people.

The health care overhaul focus will now quickly shift from Washington to state capitals. Only 14 states, plus Washington, D.C., have adopted plans to set up the new health insurance markets called for under the law. Called exchanges, the new markets are supposed to be up and running on Jan. 1, 2014. People buying coverage individually, as well as small businesses, will be able to shop for private coverage from a range of competing insurers.

Most Republican-led states, including large ones such as Texas and Florida, have been counting on the law to be overturned and have failed to do the considerable spade work needed to set up exchanges. There's a real question about whether they can meet the deadline, and if they don't, Washington will step in and run their exchanges for them.

In contrast to the states, health insurance companies, major employers, and big hospital systems are among the best prepared. Many of the changes called for in the law were already being demanded by employers trying to get better value for their private health insurance dollars.

"The main driver here is financial," said Dr. Toby Cosgrove, CEO of the Cleveland Clinic, which has pioneered some of the changes. "The factors driving health care reform are not new, and they are not going to go away."

The Medicaid expansion would cover an estimated 17 million people who earn too much to qualify for assistance but not enough to afford insurance. The federal and state governments share the cost, and Washington regularly imposes conditions on the states in exchange for money.

Roberts said Congress' ability to impose those conditions has its limits. "In this case, the financial 'inducement' Congress has chosen is much more than 'relatively mild encouragement' — it is a gun to the head," he said.

The law says the Health and Human Services Department can withhold a state's entire Medicaid allotment if the state doesn't comply with the health care law's Medicaid provisions.

Even while ruling out that level of coercion, however, Roberts said nothing prevents the federal government from offering money to accomplish the expansion and withholding that money from states that don't meet certain conditions.

"What Congress is not free to do is to penalize states that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding," he said.

Ginsburg said the court should have upheld the entire law as written without forcing any changes in the Medicaid provision. She said Congress' constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce supports the individual mandate. She warned that the legal reasoning, even though the law was upheld, could cause trouble in future cases.

"So in the end, the Affordable Health Care Act survives largely unscathed. But the court's commerce clause and spending clause jurisprudence has been set awry. My expectation is that the setbacks will be temporary blips, not permanent obstructions," Ginsburg said in a statement she, too, read from the bench.

In the courtroom Thursday were retired Justice John Paul Stevens and the wives of Roberts, Alito, Breyer, Kennedy and Thomas.


Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Charles Babington, Jessica Gresko, Jesse J. Holland and David Espo contributed to this report.

Read the Supreme Court's opinion



© 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.


  • SPUDIO posted at 10:33 pm on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    SPUDIO Posts: 101

    Atta baby golden!

  • The Golden Mean posted at 12:17 pm on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "To save Cakifornia's movie and television industry from fleeing the state Arnold and the libtard legislature provided them with tax credits!"

    Oh I see, he came up with a stimulus plan.

    The thing is though, Arnold terminated $500 million in revenues based on speculation while "knowing" about the budget problems. That's bad business!

    "See if you can figure it out Butchwax"

    Butchwax: A pink wax that was used for crew cuts and flat tops. The flat top haircut generally had a "front row" of hair which was neatly propped across the top of the forehead. Butch wax was applied to keep that row of hair vertically in place.

    Butchwaxed could also be used describe how Right Wing Politics works. Prop up the economy with deficit spending, borrow to keep things neatly in place and then pretend that we're looking good.

    We've been Butchwaxed by the Right Wing!

  • Mahiun posted at 10:12 am on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    Mahiun Posts: 5317

    So why didn't California move to increase revenues?
    Mostly, because they can't. And in turn, that is mostly because of Prop 13. California's troubles are not because of some "giveaway spree", but overwhelmingly because of a dysfunctional tax structure (primarily the result of Republican administrations and the conservative voting blocs of Orange, San Diego, and Riverside counties).

    All kinds of constitutionally mandated services --- from schools to fire and police services to road repairs to airport improvements --- are tied to taxes on property values, in California. But Prop 13 ties those tax assessments to late-1970's values, and then caps the amount of allowable tax assessment until that property is sold. If the homeowner dies but bequeaths the property rather than selling it, it's still assessed at its late-70's value.

    And it gets worse, because while the assessed valuation for tax purposes can't go UP, it can and does go DOWN, as it just did in the middle of the worst economic downturn since The Great Depression. Add to that the decreased tax revenue from income taxes when nobody's working, sales taxes when nobody's buying, gasoline taxes when nobody's going anywhere....

    And remember, these services are not optional. They are mandated by the state constitution, regardless of who sits in either the Assembly Hall (legislature) or the Governor's Mansion. So they have the perfect storm: they have inadequate funding, they have no way to increase the revenue, given the primary source, and they have a requirement to provide these services, funded or not. They essentially have no choice but deficit spending.

    And this is exactly the same thing that many conservatives want for Idaho....

    Now, as specifically regards the ACA and taxation....

    From the howling, weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments coming from the right, you'd think this tax was being imposed on everyone, everywhere, at all times, under all circumstances, with no way to avoid it. Not true! Not even close!

    If you already have health insurance, nothing changes. You won't pay this tax; it won't even affect you in the least.

    It only happens if you CHOOSE not to purchase health insurance or post a bond demonstrating financial responsibility for your own healthcare costs. The reason for this is that people without health insurance, who then nonetheless make use of healthcare services, place an undue burden on the rest of society. But is still your choice to decline to purchase health insurance; you can choose to pay the tax, instead --- but one way or another, you owe it to the rest o society to carry your own weight and pay your fair share.

    Even then, however, there is no way to enforce this tax, except for deducting it from a refund. It's almost entirely "bark" and virtually no "bite". So, as has come to be their habit, those on the right who are howling over this are howling over essentially..........nothing. (Imagine my surprise.... [[rolling eyes]])

    But hey, never let the facts of the matter get in the way of a good ideological rant!

  • max power posted at 9:02 am on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    max power Posts: 559

    *** Do As I say Not As I Do ***

    Hollyweird never met a libtard cause or program they didn't want government to fund. "THEY", however, just don't want "THEIR" money used to fund it. Many production companies were threatening to move their operations to Canada and tax friendy states. To save Cakifornia's movie and television industry from fleeing the state Arnold and the libtard legislature provided them with tax credits!

    There is a reason the Democrap Party is called the "TAX & SPEND" Party. See if you can figure it out Butchwax.

    "As Sergeant Preston of the Yukon would say, 'This case is closed King.' " -- Jack Hammer

  • The Golden Mean posted at 11:00 pm on Fri, Jun 29, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "Let me guess..."

    No, I don't want you to guess. I don't think it's reasonable to speculate and rant as if truth... like how they do on the British Political New Network, I mean Faux News.

    With that said, let's have a little fun with your rant. While it's quite obvious that California has a number of issues that remain unresolved, it seems illogical to approve an operating budget and slash tax revenues as if those issue were resolved... Classic Right Wing!

    So why didn't California move to increase revenues? Because that not what the Right Wing does. In times of war and extreme budget shortfalls the Right Wing typically moves to reduce incoming tax revenues. For example, remember when the Terminator enacted a five-year program of tax credits for film production in California?

    By the way, the credit (as much as $100 million a year) will run for two more years!

  • max power posted at 7:24 pm on Fri, Jun 29, 2012.

    max power Posts: 559

    Let me guess. You want to tie California's current budget crisis to "RINO" Arnold. I think George Bush may have passed through California at some point. Maybe you can blame Bush! Yeah that's it, it's Bush's fault.

    Why weren't/aren't taxes simply increased to cover the ever expanding programs conjured up by the liberal California Legislature? That's always the libtards answer to their excessive spending. Raise taxes to spend on programs that a majority of the tax payers don't want, don't need and won't use. California is spending billions incarcerating, medicating, and educating illegal alien Mexican Nationals. Los Angeles is now know as Los Gang-a-les. That's money that they could used that "WOULDN'T" require raising taxes on the taxpayers. However the libtards don't want the immigration laws currently on the books inforced because they view those illegals a future Democrap voters when Obama can get through amnesty...

    California is controlled by the powerful Correctional Officers Union, The AFL-CIO Firefighters Union, Teachers Unions and SEIU representing all state workers. Arnold felt the true rath of the unions when he tried to rein them in after his first term.

    It's time for the libtards to rein in their excessive spending. Wisconsin pretty much put the flashlight on the path for the Democraps to embrace. Either that or find themselves out of power or filing for bankruptcy. Stockon, California anyone?

    This reminds me of the left wings/libtards Tax, Spend and Make promises you can't fund without raising taxes "AGAIN" & "AGAIN" & "AGAIN" & "AGAIN"!....

  • Mahiun posted at 2:17 pm on Fri, Jun 29, 2012.

    Mahiun Posts: 5317

    Who is John Galt?

    Who cares??!!?

    But for the record, he's the fictional hero of a mediocre-at-best novel by a writer who fancied herself a philosopher, and who cobbled together an ersatz "philosophy" which, when boiled down to its essence, consists of institutionalized selfishness and which has been pretty thoroughly dismantled and debunked as a coherent epistemology.

    Next question....

  • The Golden Mean posted at 1:27 pm on Fri, Jun 29, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "Governor Moonbeam and the libtards are doing a great job of bankruptying that State..."

    Governor Moonbeam? That's funny.

    I need to tap into your max powers of assumption for a moment. While it's true that California has a budget crisis, do you knew who approved the budget(s) that lead to the shortfall? More importantly, what political party was that person tied to?

    While you work to "Terminate" my question, why weren't taxes simply increased to generate the revenues needed to pay the bills? Maybe that's the core problem, a certain particular group of politicians has failed to understand that you gotta have money to pay the bills and if you don't pay the bills it's gonna catch up to you one day (Today is that one day).

    This reminds me of the Right Wing's "Spend, Borrow and Pretend We Are Rich" policies.

    "I'll be back" later to see if you were able to find the answer to my question.

  • max power posted at 12:00 pm on Fri, Jun 29, 2012.

    max power Posts: 559

    California legislature has been controlled by Democrat Libtards since 1970 with the exception of just two years in the 90's. The Governor merely signs or vetos the legislation coming out of the liberal laboratory. But you knew that didn't you Golden Mean? Governor Moonbeam and the libtards are doing a great job of bankruptying that State and have been for many years. It's Obama's vision for the Country!

    "I am all for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Ben Franklin 1766

    "You can always spot a liberal. They are the one's with their hand held out." -- Jack Hammer

  • The Golden Mean posted at 10:39 am on Fri, Jun 29, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "Who is John Galt?"

    I'll take fictional characters for $500

  • Bob Loblaw posted at 9:13 am on Fri, Jun 29, 2012.

    Bob Loblaw Posts: 407

    Who is John Galt?

  • The Golden Mean posted at 10:30 pm on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "But I get the impression that almost everyone here has no idea what they are talking about, including myself"

    How can you be sure?

  • Cody Wiench posted at 8:56 pm on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    Cody Wiench Posts: 353

    I am going to start by acknowledging that I have not investigated the Affordable Care Act nor its ACTUAL consequences. But I get the impression that almost everyone here has no idea what they are talking about, including myself.

  • The Golden Mean posted at 6:30 pm on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "California and Illinois are to shining examples of liberalism!"

    Ah yes California, the home of the Godfather of Right Wing Politics Ronald Reagan. Eight years the Terminator for Governor didn't work out for them, did it?

    "Libtards like spending productive peoples money..."
    "Libtards never met a "feel good" program they didn't want..."

    This reminds me the stereotypical an anti-homosexual Right Wing rants. Straight conservative men who want nothing to to with gay folks but yet somehow they have managed to become insider level experts on the gay lifestyle.

    Dude, how the heck do you know so much about Liberals? Perhaps you've spent some time hanging out and taking notes at the Happy Donkey Steam Bath?

    Your (max) powers of assumption are absolutely spectacular... Bravo!

  • max power posted at 6:10 pm on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    max power Posts: 559

    California and Illinois are to shining examples of liberalism! Both of those states are going broke! Why stand when you can sit, and why sit when you can lay. Libtards like spending productive peoples money and give it to the non-productive types. Libtards never met a "feel good" program they didn't want to fund on the backs of the producers. "Takers" versus "Makers." It's all about wealth redistribution. Something Obama ran on...

    "Ghetto momma who couldn't afford health insurance still won't be able to pay the health tax. She will be subsidized by the 50% of the people that actually pay Federal Income Tax." Jack Hammer

  • Humanist posted at 5:53 pm on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    Humanist Posts: 3163

    I want MY government to spend MY taxes on MY health. And if MY taxes happen to help pay for the health care of some other folks, then that sounds just fine to me. That's the moral thing to do.

  • The Golden Mean posted at 4:11 pm on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "Tax & Spend, it's the libtard way"

    Yes, tax and spend, that's how it should work.

    Is there any other sustainable way to do things? We know that Spend, Borrow & Pretend We Are Rich doesn't work, 30 years of mostly Right Wing Leadership has proven that.

    It's time to get your head on straight, I know it'll be tough, perceptions are kinda tweaked right now. The Right Wing has been busy cutting taxes during war time for a war that was paid for with the country's credit card - All while proclaiming themselves as being fiscally responsible!

    Let me guess, that was President Obama's fault too?

    I know this is obvious but there a lot of Right Wing folks here so I'll say it so that nobody has to assume otherwise.... We as a country need tax revenues to pay the bills. The Right Wing maxed out the credit cards so there will be no more charging stuff for a while.

  • max power posted at 3:18 pm on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    max power Posts: 559

    "We need to pass it so we can see what's in its." -- Nancy Pelosi

    "The mandate is not a tax" -- Barack Obama

    "Tax & Spend, it's the libtard way." -- Jack Hammer

  • The Golden Mean posted at 2:58 pm on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "When this nation throws out the possibility of a personal, empirically verifiable God, we now deal with men doing what seems like an attempt to make things well"

    Men who value reality over telepathic communications with an invisible imaginary friend.

    I'm okay with that.

  • The Golden Mean posted at 2:56 pm on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    "Obamacare A-TAX!"

    Yes, it's called how we pay for stuff. A little detail that's not considered in Right Wing programs.

    The Hypocrisy of the Right Wing: Disapprove when a program (that will be funded with revenues instead of borrowed money!) to keep Americans healthy is created. Approve when we use the country's credit card to go to war while not considering, planning for, or budgeting for the expense of properly taking care of our returning war veterans. <--- Blaming President Obama is not a sustainable solution!

    <b>Right Wing Politics: Spend, borrow, pretend we are rich

    America cannot afford another 4 years of Right Wing Leadership

  • Old Hayden posted at 12:30 pm on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    Old Hayden Posts: 33

    Great decision!

  • inclined posted at 12:24 pm on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    inclined Posts: 681

    If we didn't agonize against "Obamacare", you will agonize against Obamacare.

    There are things that are so contrary, we will have to learn them as evil.

    When this nation throws out the possibility of a personal, empirically verifiable God, we now deal with men doing what seems like an attempt to make things well. Obamacare, however, is not about care, it is about power. Religion is about power, manipulating, controlling the lives of people as an evidence contrary to what is true. This Supreme Court is giving us evidence that such things as justice, equity, kindness..., are absolute, first law, and evidence that man is programed in his nature, in his conscience, his heart. Man is going to have god, either as He is, or as he makes him. Bottom up, sustainable health care is doing god's business. It is, however, not about creating "health", but is, as man's religion, man as doing god. Bottom line: it is about control.

    Sadly, Romney is the intellectual grandfather of Obama"care", whether or not he is now against it. He did set the precedent. And like the Frankenstein, the playing god, we had to validate this law to find how it will turn on very ones it is suppose to help, especially the unborn. There is no health for the unborn, to be murdered on, supported by government, in the name of god and for the glory of control. The taxed support of abortion is the screaming evidence that Obamacare is full swing anti health, anti care, actually. It is about control.

  • The Other Decider posted at 11:58 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    The Other Decider Posts: 232

    The right wing has just had their worst smackdown since the day Obama was elected. The path of history continues to head toward univ health care . LOL

  • Brent Regan posted at 11:32 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    Brent Regan Posts: 663

    Obamacare A-TAX!

  • milly06 posted at 11:29 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    milly06 Posts: 22

    Quote from Herman Cain...
    " Today’s ruling on ObamaCare is simply surreal. The Obama Administration sold the individual mandate again and again with the argument that it was not a tax. Then they argued before the Supreme Court that it was a tax, because that was the only way to defend it constitutionally.

    Justices Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito clearly saw through this exercise in semantics, and they deserve our thanks for their commitment to the Constitution and the law in their dissent. The best that can be said for Chief Justice Roberts, in voting to uphold the law, is that he rejected the administration’s argument that the mandate was permitted by the commerce clause.

    That said, it should never have been the job of the Supreme Court to clean up a terrible piece of legislation perpetrated by Congress and the White House. ObamaCare may have been declared constitutional by five justices – although not in the manner the White House sold it, which is telling – but that doesn’t change the fact that it is a horrible law that will bankrupt this country, explode health care costs and diminish the quality of care throughout this nation.
    Government tyranny has been slowed, but not stopped.

    What today’s ruling means is that anything government can call a tax, it has the power to do. Regardless of the semantics, we are subjected to government tyranny.

    This merely emboldens the government to keep taxing and taxing and taxing.

    Today is a temporary setback. The American people have hated ObamaCare since its inception, and they can see that it is already driving up health care costs. The ruling that really matters will come on November 6, when We the People have the opportunity to replace the president and the Congress who created this monstrosity with new leaders who will replace it with measures that value market forces and free choice.

    Mitt Romney has already vowed that he will issue waivers to all 50 states on his first day in office. That is an excellent start. The next step is for the new Congress to repeal ObamaCare in its entirety and replace it with new measures that empower patients and physicians – not bureaucrats and insurance companies.

    The fate of American health care remains where it belongs – in the hands of the American people."

    I never supported Herman Cain, but his written words here today are indeed accurate:

    "The fate of American health care remains where it belongs - in the hands of the American people..! "

    Be sure to vote this November.

  • The Golden Mean posted at 11:28 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    The Golden Mean Posts: 4213

    An influx of healthy people could be bad news for my pharmaceutical company stocks as sick Americans may longer be the sustainable and abundant national resource they once were.

    Okay capitalism, what's next?

    Side Note: After reading the responses below, I can see why Right Wing Leadership rarely discloses how something will be paid for (because they'll be using the country credit card). Make plans to actually pay for something in this country, the people go nuts.

    Spend, borrow and pretend we are rich... Seems like people like that much better which explains why we have had a Right Wing leader the majority of last 30 years. Problem is, we can't afford to play that game with our economy any more - we gotta pay for stuff now!

  • Rationale posted at 10:49 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    Rationale Posts: 1976

    Wait...I thought Obama said it wasn't a tax...and now the Supreme Court says it is.

    Who's lying here?

  • the floorist posted at 10:25 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    the floorist Posts: 331

    "...Q: Does the new health care law impose a 3.8 percent tax on profits from selling your home...?

    That's just for primary residential principle's and the personal equity gains therein. Investment and commercial derivatives will be levied differently since the capital gain is taxed as such.

    Deferments are the key to this real estate tax and will be a point of contention in relation to the supreme justices impression that this reform measure is indeed a form of liability taxation...just like all those other "socialized medicine" countries which is covered through taxation and limited only by the wealth of the patient.

    As for microchips...these knuckleheads in office are asking for anarchy...gee-zus...

  • Rationale posted at 10:05 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    Rationale Posts: 1976


    I am not rich, but doing just fine, even without a job right now. But to tax the rich or successful for selling their home has NOTHING to do with healthcare or it's reform. It is putrid.

    This bill is completely worthless. It is expensive, and does not extend coverage to all. And what are you going to tell the remaining 10million who will not be covered?

  • Flash Gordon posted at 9:36 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    Flash Gordon Posts: 1433

    Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Chuck Grassley and a whole slug of other repubs were for Romneycare before it became Obamacare.....go figure. Mitt Romney will lose the health care debate with our president every time this comes up for discussion when they face each other three times before the election. How ironic is that?

  • Thinkoutsidethefox posted at 9:35 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    Thinkoutsidethefox Posts: 2

    This seems to be a misconception about a tax on your home. Here is an answer to this question that many seem to have:

    Q: Does the new health care law impose a 3.8 percent tax on profits from selling your home?

    A: No, with very few exceptions. The first $250,000 in profit from the sale of a personal residence won’t be taxed, or the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple. The tax falls on relatively few — those with high incomes from other sources.

    For those that are interested here is a link:

  • IdahoJoey posted at 9:30 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    IdahoJoey Posts: 343

    So they decided it's a tax and not a right. Excellent. That means simple legislation can remove it from being law.

    Put it on Congress' docket for early February and say goodbye this latest of entitlements.

  • Rationale posted at 9:10 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    Rationale Posts: 1976

    Praise it all you want...but shut up when you sell your house! Oh, wait, you forgot the tax for selling your house that is attached to this bill. Congrats, morons...sell your $200K house, and you have to pay the feds $7K!

    Oh, then there's the computer chip. But you don't want to discuss that either.

    Go As Dr. Tony Golden why he just closed his practice in southern Idaho. Ask him what it was about the bill that made him quit!

  • SPUDIO posted at 8:42 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    SPUDIO Posts: 101

    Everyone should have affordable health care period! What we need is affordable health care for pre-existing conditions. I have one and lets talk astronomical premiums. Other than that it is a great day for America.

  • Keven Johnson posted at 8:40 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    Keven Johnson Posts: 1387

    We can "throw the bums out" all we want and they will just be replaced with new bums. We can send Obama packing and replace him with Mitt Romney, and nothing will change; in fact things might get worse with a so called republican president with no opposition from a so called republican congress.

    At the republican convention in Twin Falls last weekend, I asked several people if they honestly thought Romney was any different than Obama; almost everyone I spoke to agreed he was not, "except for the kind of justices he will appoint to the Supreme Court" Well..... the decidng vote in this debacle was a so-called "conservative" appointed by a republican president. So much for that theory.

    The only way to take our republic back is for the people in several states to follow Thomas Jefferson's advice and nullify (not comply with) unconstitutional laws. Representative Barbieri of district 2 proposed such a bill last year and got it through the Idaho House but the timid Senate voted it down.

    Are we waking up yet? Will we support our legislators such as Vito Barbieri who have the courage to do the right thing, and hold the other's feet to the fire and make them do the right thing? I don't know the answer - - I hope "we the people" will start taking our country back, starting at the local, county, and state levels, because it isn't going to happen from the top down. Is it too late? I hope not.

  • Good_Ole_Mitt_Romney posted at 8:28 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    Good_Ole_Mitt_Romney Posts: 161

    Well that's another nail in my coffin, keep this up this rich boy isn't going to get elected.
    Conservative heads are exploding all over the U.S.A.
    2 million Republicans just died of heart failure. . .oh wait you need a heart for that don't you?

  • milly06 posted at 8:21 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    milly06 Posts: 22

    So - my govenrment has decided that I must support a private insurance company, or I will be taxed.

  • the floorist posted at 8:11 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    the floorist Posts: 331

    It's constitutional from a tax perspective. That

    No penalty for non-compliance to a tax law? k, k, k, come again? I get it...the illegal minorities who will be opting out of paying for it get to stay in the country AND keep getting free health care...just like home...

  • chouli posted at 8:11 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    chouli Posts: 1283

    This country needs to provide healthcare for all citizens.
    Not insurance.

  • blazer posted at 8:09 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    blazer Posts: 17

    Hmm... "With regards to the individual mandate, the individual responsibility program that I proposed, I was very pleased that the compromise between the two houses includes the personal responsibility mandate" - Mitt Romney, 2006.

  • apathoid posted at 7:55 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    apathoid Posts: 211

    One more treason committed by yet another activist Supreme Court to further erode the Constitution. Sad and shameful, yet this may be what it finally takes to ignite the base enough to throw all the bums out.

    It all but guarantees the Exalted Leader will only see one term, there is a small silver lining.

  • I Carry posted at 7:43 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    I Carry Posts: 492

    This is truly a sad day for Americans.

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard