Ok, so it won't be a SHITLOAD, but I'm paying just under 4k a year on premiums at the moment

If what I was looking at is remotely accurate, I'd save 1k on premiums alone.

[Edited on June 28, 2012 at 11:23 AM. Reason : ]

6/28/2012 11:23:05 AM

please post what you were looking at if you dont mind!

6/28/2012 11:25:44 AM

BO vehemently denied this being a "tax" before the ruling, and the ruling states that this is constitutional because it is a tax.

BO: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

6/28/2012 11:27:30 AM

Quote :

"I also dont see how anyone who has any knowledge of the Constitution can be happy about this."

you do realize what the Supreme Court does, don't you?

6/28/2012 11:30:02 AM

^^^ http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

I don't expect it to be 100% accurate

[Edited on June 28, 2012 at 11:30 AM. Reason : ]

6/28/2012 11:30:30 AM

^^ yes. thats why they are ruling it as a "tax" and not a mandate, thats how they are skirting the constitution. I think any reasonable person does know this is a mandate

6/28/2012 11:35:36 AM

What a sweet new tax.

6/28/2012 12:10:42 PM

A mandate? A tax? Call it what you want, taxes are mandatory.

We're going to make people in this country healthy God damn it, even if we have to kill them. Yes we can.

It should be clear that this legislation was not a victory for the American left. In fact, the individual mandate had been supported by many conservatives for years. It wasn't universal health care, it doesn't pay for anyone's health care, it doesn't really do anything that "the left" wanted to be done. It was a rushed compromise - because Congress had to do "something", and a political victory was desperately needed. A band aid for a hemorrhaging health care system, nothing more.

If you're partisan, it doesn't really matter what was in the bill, you support it because Obama told you to support it. If you're not partisan, it's pretty clear that this legislation doesn't address any major problems. Obama said it best in the 2008 campaign:

Quote :

"So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t."

No costs have been lowered. Costs are higher than they were in 2009. They will be higher in 2014 than they are now.

[Edited on June 28, 2012 at 1:17 PM. Reason : ]

6/28/2012 1:11:09 PM

I'll still be paying 1k less than normal

*dancing on your tax money*

I'd definitely prefer single payer

6/28/2012 11:50:35 PM

It's ridiculous that people even joke about defending this verdict as constitutional.


How many of you have heard this one in your lifetime?
"I wasn't stealing it, I was borrowing it with the intent of never giving it back"

6/29/2012 12:37:12 AM

2008

OBAMA: "[Hillary Clinton would] have the government FORCE every individual to buy [health] insurance, and I don't have such a mandate because I don't think [so] ... [But] the problem is not that people don't want health insurance. It's that they can't afford it. Well, if things were that easy, I could ... uh ...mandate everybody buy a house, and uh ...that ... you know... and that would solve... ah... you know, the problem of homelessness. [Well], it doesn't."


http://youtu.be/QX_NifR5gZU

6/29/2012 3:52:04 AM

He didn't have the mandate in his plan in 2008. For some reason Obama was forced to make vast concessions and modifications to get the thing to pass. But I know you're the king of finding bits of information and ignoring whatever doesn't fit your preconceptions.

6/29/2012 10:41:35 AM

MY GAWD... OBAMA HAS DONE THE UNTHINKABLE (i.e. what conservatives wanted 23 yrs ago).

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

Quote :

"The concept of the individual health insurance mandate is considered to have originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate."

6/29/2012 10:47:42 AM

Quote :

"He didn't have the mandate in his plan in 2008. For some reason Obama was forced to make vast concessions and modifications to get the thing to pass. But I know you're the king of finding bits of information and ignoring whatever doesn't fit your preconceptions."

Denial is not just a river in Egypt

6/29/2012 12:08:14 PM

good argument genius!

6/29/2012 12:18:08 PM

There's no argument here. The facts are self evident.

6/29/2012 12:19:29 PM

Delusion is not just an olympic sled. (i just made that up!)

6/29/2012 12:23:16 PM

Excellent! I like it!

6/29/2012 12:28:56 PM

You know, the GOP is really gonna regret branding the PPACA as "Obamacare" now.

6/29/2012 2:52:02 PM

If I were the democrats, I'd start calling it "Obamacares".

6/29/2012 8:01:25 PM

^^ Yeah, no.

When the President's campaign is now trying to convince us that the thing that they didn't call a tax was now proclaimed by the Supreme Court as a tax isn't a tax, then you know it didn't go as well for them as everybody thought.

Additionally, according to the Art. I, Sec. 7, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, any bill levying a tax must originate in the House.

Obamacare didn't, because the House couldn't pass it's version of the bill, so they took the Senate's bill and reconciled it.

6/30/2012 10:00:26 AM

if the House had ever passed any text concerning healthcare then the Senate can introduce it as is , change it by amendment later, and thereby get around that provision. I'm not familiar enough with the evolution of the PPACA including it's farthest legislative ancestor so this may or may not be the case. also if the House wanted to it could have issued a blue slip and stopped the bill from going any further without them having to vote on it (and they very well may say "well we were told it was not a tax damnit otherwise we would have").

6/30/2012 12:57:52 PM

Robert's ruling wasn't "genius" tactics to stop Obamacare. It was a "blatant ignorance of the administration's prior arguments" and a pushing through of a new world agenda REGARDLESS of whether or not logic can be applied to the ruling.

Quote :

" "Additionally, according to the Art. I, Sec. 7, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, any bill levying a tax must originate in the House.""

is the genius to stop Obamacare.... for about 1 sec.

We already know that the bills passed in the House and the Senate.
It's as simple as re-voting for them, starting in the House and Senate.
Since they've already voted on the bill, they aren't going to think twice about changing their vote.

Therefore, the technicality, introduced by the constitutionalist, is just a minor minor technicality that "we the people" are using. The strength of the argument is as strong as a single strand of braided string, holding on to dear life.

What's the constitution? It doesn't exist anymore, people.



[Edited on June 30, 2012 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

6/30/2012 2:05:05 PM

If Mitt wins and the Senate goes GOP, the Senate can use the reconcilation method (or whatever it is called, what the Dems used to pass the bill in the first place). All that is needed is 51 votes...I read that Roberts labeling the penality as a tax lets them use it.

7/1/2012 1:17:22 AM

7/4/2012 11:59:59 PM

The U.S. unemployment rate was unchanged at 8.2% in June but a broader measure rose to 14.9% as the ranks of the underemployed grew.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/07/06/broader-jobless-rate-ticks-up-to-14-9/

The economy added 80,000 jobs in June, the Labor Department reported Friday, barely an improvement from the 77,000 jobs added in May.
Economists surveyed by CNNMoney had expected to see employers add 95,000 jobs and the unemployment rate to remain unchanged.
The economy needs at least 125,000 jobs added each month just to keep up with population growth.
Roughly 12.7 million Americans remain unemployed, and 41.9% of them have been so for six months or more.
Another 88 million out-of-work people were not even counted as unemployed, because they didn't look for a job in the last four weeks.

BO: "the private sector is doing fine"

7/6/2012 10:32:25 AM

7/6/2012 1:55:40 PM

88 million people weren't counted?

7/6/2012 1:56:23 PM

I would appreciate it if he would quit spamming youtube videos I want to watch with attack ads.

In before get adblock+.

7/7/2012 7:07:36 AM

http://www.esquire.com/features/obama-lethal-presidency-0812

Good read on actual, legitimate reasons to condemn Obama's presidency.

7/9/2012 8:31:58 PM

Who needs cispa and sopa when you can just make an executive order?

Quote :

"Obama gives himself control of all communication systems in America http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-president-order-communications-770/ "

7/9/2012 8:41:29 PM

is this where i get to yell at him, "you lie!"

???

7/9/2012 8:47:31 PM

maybe if you're an inbred fuck

most normal, civilized people actually act with respect

7/9/2012 9:39:25 PM

http://portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5e90efa5-355b-4cd2-8908-42c510de959f

clearly the rich should pay more.

7/12/2012 11:31:31 AM

Maybe if they actually were "job creators" your rolly eyes would make a modicum of sense.

7/12/2012 11:40:07 AM

hey! nice use of a buzzword,

but how about refuting the math in what i linked so i can kiss my own ass?

i get lambasted here FAR too much for "lacking substance" to allow someone opposite me to get away with it.

7/12/2012 12:02:55 PM

I got the buzzword from the crap you linked, btw.

Maybe if you linked to some actual math and not garbage that starts with the line:

"“While President Obama calls for higher taxes on jobs creators".

And maybe if you made a conclusion that I could refute instead of an incomplete sarcastic sentence I'd have something to respond to. Or would you prefer I give you a link to go read and half a statement to respond to?

[Edited on July 12, 2012 at 12:06 PM. Reason : btw]

7/12/2012 12:06:00 PM

see those words in the middle of the article that are yellow instead of blue?

those are called hyperlinks.

those go to another webpage called the congressional budget office.

those are not something you can tear down because theyre on a republican congressman's website.

"garbage" for sure.

and just for future reference, who exactly do you think the job creators are?

7/12/2012 12:14:08 PM

Quote :

"http://portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=5e90efa5-355b-4cd2-8908-42c510de959f clearly the rich should pay more. "

That link doesn't say that they shouldn't. It seems them paying more would in fact be a reasonable course of action, all things considered.

7/12/2012 4:25:30 PM

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia

Quote :

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

Fuck this cancerous ideology.

The government is not "us". We can work together to accomplish great things, or we can be told what to do and how to behave by people with guns. To see government officials take credit for the existent of a marketplace sickens me.

7/15/2012 12:09:29 PM

^The government by definition IS us.

What's cancerous is not taking the proper control of government and viewing it as a distinct entity.

7/15/2012 12:22:57 PM

No, that's not the definition of government. "We" are who we are. You're you. I'm me. Obama is who he is. Society is the word we use to describe all of collectively. The government is not, by any stretch, "us". There are individuals that are government agents, and we may have some marginal input on who those agents are, but the people that make up the government are absolutely distinct from society as a whole.

7/15/2012 12:31:36 PM

Quote :

"The government by definition IS us. "

Hey look! A moron.

7/15/2012 1:45:06 PM

I suppose Obama can stand by those statements because his whole life, and career, have been "public jobs" where no amount of private risk is required.

My dad made a comment that made me think.... In my 27 years of life, I've undertaken more private/market risk than Obama ever has (w/ regards to starting my own business).

From Obama's statements in that speech, it's painfully obvious he has no idea what it's like to put your livelihood on the line to start a business, bring value to the market, and provide jobs for others. His whole life has been an affirmative action, political grooming entitlement fest.

[Edited on July 16, 2012 at 10:32 AM. Reason : n]

7/16/2012 10:30:16 AM

And Romney...has? By risking other peoples' money and jobs to make a fortune? If "it's like to put your livelihood on the line to start a business, bring value to the market, and provide jobs for others." is your litmus for President, you're fucked.

7/16/2012 10:34:37 AM

I am not a fan of Romney either.

My statements are just directed at the nonsense he is spewing. Pandering to the crowd who want more entitlements and handouts.

I hear people make comments about Obama being a shining example of the American Dream, when his whole career has been living off the teat of the government and never holding a private, market risk bearing job.

Romney is about just as bad, on the other-side of the spectrum.



[Edited on July 16, 2012 at 10:49 AM. Reason : words]

7/16/2012 10:48:22 AM

Quote :

"put your livelihood on the line to start a business, bring value to the market, and provide jobs for others."

Considering this is still a fundamental principle of being successful in this country, then yes, it might be a bit of a litmus test for a future president to pass.

Certainly not the only one, but far more relevant to the job than this fucking garbage:

Quote :

"If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Obama isn't the American Dream; he's a leech breeding more leeches. They money they're sucking away will end this country in our lifetimes, and if you think that's cool or moral then "you're fucked."

[Edited on July 16, 2012 at 12:22 PM. Reason : -]

7/16/2012 12:17:50 PM

Quote :

"His whole life has been an affirmative action, political grooming entitlement fest."

you, sir, are an idiot

7/16/2012 1:27:39 PM

Quote :

"you, sir, are an idiot"

Please refute my claim...

Provide me one example of Obama either gaining practical experience in a market driven, risk affected business. Or where affirmative action did not play a role in his acquiring of prestigious positions....

My main issue is not the he leveraged affirmative action. But, he's taking what was handed to him by the government and liberal institutes and then making the claim that every other successful business person leveraged the same entitlements, and that we all owe it to everyone else to give away their earned property.

7/16/2012 1:42:46 PM

Double

[Edited on July 16, 2012 at 1:48 PM. Reason : X]

7/16/2012 1:44:45 PM