Barbieri: SCOTUS decision 'unbelievable' - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

Barbieri: SCOTUS decision 'unbelievable'

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:14 am

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — Since a Democratic-controlled Congress revamped America's health insurance system in 2010, the notion of government-mandated coverage has vexed most Idaho Republicans.

Thursday's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the individual mandate brought cries of protest from conservatives who have railed against the sweeping federal law.

Rep. Vito Barbieri in 2011 led efforts to nullify the health care overhaul, with a bill that passed the Idaho House but failed in the Senate on constitutional concerns.

With the justices' conclusion that the mandate is legal, Barbieri believes the decision will renew conservatives' vigor to somehow block the measure from taking effect in Idaho, if they can.

Barbieri of Dalton Gardens in northern Idaho called the decision "unbelievable" and insists the state must do what it can to protect its finances.

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

11 comments:

  • searcher posted at 8:39 pm on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    searcher Posts: 365

    @inclined

    There is no 1.8 trillion dollar whammy on working families

    The medical devise excise tax is not going to move jobs overseas - it applies to all devices sold in the US - including imports. The offset is millions of more devices in demand due to the increased amount of insured people who will now be able to get elective procedures because they have insurance. The med device mfgrs are seeing a dip in demand from the recession and all the postponed elective procedures. 2.3% is peanuts, but they still blow smoke to make it sound like a disaster

    The 3.8% investment income tax on dividends applies to subchapter S corporations - All dividends and interest income FOR EVERYONE should be taxed as regular income. These guys are getting a big break at only 3.8%

    The hospital tax will only be paid as a penalty for not providing care as required. If they are smart, they will improve their processes and procedures to avoid the tax.

    The drug tax is a fee on branded prescription drugs - the same ones you can get in Canada for a third of the price as here in the US. Drug companies are raping the US public on patented drugs as it is. I don't have a lot of sympathy. Generic drugs don't count.

    The black liquor of which you speak was closing a loop hole for a tax expenditure (meaning credit and refund) that was in the farm bill. The compound has been treated as a cellulosic biofuel and the credit was to encourage production and research as an alternative fuel (since 2005). Hasn't worked - close the loop hole. This is NOT A NEW TAX - it is a repeal of a credit.

    Indoor tanning salons deserve a 10% tax - in fact they deserve to be banned. They cause cancer when abused. Just ask the hundreds of thousands of tanning addicts who have skin cancer now. No sympathy from me.

    Not sure what this mythical hike in medicare is that you are talking about. There is a reduction in the amount of subsidy for medicare advantage (which was a very clever racket), there is a tax credit for the donut hole in medicare drug coverage, there is a tax credit and subsidy for premium support, there is an increas in the tax credit for adoptions, and so much more.

    You have not made a convincing argument yet. Got more?

     
  • inclined posted at 4:01 pm on Sat, Jun 30, 2012.

    inclined Posts: 682

    His plan, which subsidizes some 30 million uninsured[it is claimed], amounts to a $1.8 trillion whammy on working families. And that's just for starters.

    The "news" is silent about the 20 other different taxes hidden in ObamaCare, more than half of which affect families earning less than $250,000 a year.

    The new taxes, which cost some $675 billion over the next decade, include:

    • A 2.3% excise tax on U.S. sales of medical devices that's already devastating the medical supply industry and its workforce. The levy is a $20 billion blow to an industry that employs roughly 400,000.

    Several major manufacturers have been roiled, including: Michigan-based Stryker Corp., which blames the tax for 1,000 layoffs; Indiana-based Zimmer Corp., which cites the tax in laying off 450 and taking a $50 million charge against earnings; Indiana-based Cook Medical Inc., which has scrubbed plans to open a U.S. factory; Minnesota-based Medtronic Inc., which expects an annual charge against earnings of $175 million, and Boston Scientific Corp., which has opted to open plants in tax-friendlier Ireland and China to help offset a $100 million charge against earnings.
    mp3Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast. See investors.com

    • A 3.8% surtax on investment income from capital gains and dividends that applies to single filers earning more than $200,000 and married couples filing jointly earning more than $250,000.

    • A $50,000 excise tax on charitable hospitals that fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance" and other rules set by the Health and Human Services Dept.

    • A $24 billion tax on the paper industry to control a pollutant known as black liquor.

    • A $2.3 billion-a-year tax on drug companies.

    • A 10% excise tax on indoor tanning salons.

    • An $87 billion hike in Medicare payroll taxes for employees, as well as the self-employed.

     
  • searcher posted at 9:19 pm on Fri, Jun 29, 2012.

    searcher Posts: 365

    @inclined "But, not only is Obamacare a Tax, it is the largest tax ever levied against Americans

    That is just flat wrong. The "tax" is a free-rider penalty for those who have the income but refuse to buy health insurance. It's a tax penalty that is estimated to be levied against only about 2% of the population. You people are so hyperbolic. Not providing health care for 100% of our citizens is barbaric, immoral and unconscionable. Republicans had a year'w worth of opportunity to contribute to shape this plan to meet everyone's needs and chose to sit it out and whine about it. Sort of reminicent of how they reacted to the civil rights act of 1964, and equal rights for women, violence against women, the fair pay act, immigration reform... If it benefits people and not corporations - Republicans want none of it. Moral relativity at its finest.

     
  • inclined posted at 12:26 pm on Fri, Jun 29, 2012.

    inclined Posts: 682

    Against the mistakes in what you say, you don't appear viscous. At least you did not mention Canada, that close Welfare State. as a plan for fixing the appendix. They come here by the thousands to Mayo, and surgery centers throughout the US, over the years.

    You money won't be used for personal health savings accounts(that was smashed as a prerogative), but you could go to Mexico. That failed state is beyond welfare. It's order is sustained by drug lords, and mucha suerte con esso. There, they feed you cannabis, breakfast, lunch and diner. Your appendix begins to think, hey, no hay problema.

     
  • uncle fester posted at 12:20 pm on Fri, Jun 29, 2012.

    uncle fester Posts: 831

    Where do these people come from? Sooner or later the State will have to comply with the law. The longer they sit on their thumbs the more it will cost taxpayers. These are leaders?

     
  • Why Not posted at 5:17 am on Fri, Jun 29, 2012.

    Why Not Posts: 4301


    What's so outrageous? The Court ruled as people have been saying all the long about Obamacare, that it is a new tax and Congress in fact has the power to create new taxes Mr. Barbieri.

    There is no doubt that the real cost of this tax plan is unknown and that it does nothing to mitigate ever more expensive healthcare. As Obamacare rolls out the real winners are of course the plaintiffs bar and the insurance industry and the loser is the consumer.

    Unless Congress revamps Obamacare you will eventually see employer provided insurance replaced with self directed personal health savings accounts and for most relegated to the government insurance option. It sucks and it's already happening. My employer is offering $2000 annually to pass on company insurance.


    On the bright side, you can always buy catastrophic coverage and hop a plane to India when the old appendix flares up. With airfare and personal recuperative care and appendectomy will set you back less than five grand, seven to eight if you fly business class.

     
  • inclined posted at 3:09 am on Fri, Jun 29, 2012.

    inclined Posts: 682

    I saw that article in Forbes "J". James Taranto, who writes for the Wall Street Journal,
    points out that “the Heritage mandate was less onerous than the Obamacare one, as it focused on coverage for catastrophic illness, rather than the comprehensive health plans that Obamacare requires’…he writes. “But it is clear that Heritage has repudiated the idea of an individual mandate.”

    Now, J. you could point this out, as though it were not now rejected with disapproval, by Heritage, and not blink an eye of your democratic head, that your president made a solemn(as stately as possibly from his “Lowness”), that he would not raise taxes for people under $150,000 I believe. And today we know, since his lawyers argued for mandate, it was Roberts who could agree that Congress could tax(regulate not originate I understood)---that’s what the government bought. That’s what the Supreme Court gave them. But, not only is Obamacare a Tax, it is the largest tax ever levied against Americans. He can change his duplistic mind, but one cannot now declare they were wrong, to cross him.

    “The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." Thomas Sowell And who has “benefited” most in this country in the effort to eliminate the product of the reproductive default mechanism, by abortion? And at the same time, learn that the more products of their lesser nature, means more money for that child, coming to them, but the blacks? The Welfare brain is a damaged brain when you engineer using the image of God in man, in babies, as a tool, playing god-fools. Blacks, and aggressively close behind, Latins have been used, bought for a price in this country. They are no more than the chattel blacks were used for. Their vote, like the black power players in Congress, is their worth.

     
  • inclined posted at 1:07 am on Fri, Jun 29, 2012.

    inclined Posts: 682

    To gag people with welfare---That retched rag will only frustrate to vomit, eventually.

    The reason welfare is bad is not because it costs too much, nor because it undermines the work ethic, but because it is intrinsically at odds with the way human beings come to live satisfying lives.
    ---Charles Alan Murray

     
  • jmowreader posted at 5:55 pm on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    jmowreader Posts: 1219

    The mandate has always been a conservative idea--it was devised by the Heritage Foundation, America's leading right-wing think tank. So it's not really unbelievable that the Supreme Court would vote to uphold it.

     
  • northone9 posted at 2:07 pm on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    northone9 Posts: 278

    Mr. Barbieri, you sir are on the wrong side of history.
    That is what is "unbelievable".

     
  • voxpop posted at 11:35 am on Thu, Jun 28, 2012.

    voxpop Posts: 738

    "Barbieri of Dalton Gardens in northern Idaho called the decision "unbelievable" and insists the state must do what it can to protect its finances."

    Whoops! I see a typo...
    Should have ended with "HIS finances."

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

Stocks