Obamacare is beating its cost expectations

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Just how fucking idiotic are you, anyway? Your stupidity is simply astonishing.

redundant...

[Yssup Rider]

?

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. The individual mandate is constitutional, just like in Romney Care for Mass. COF, Chief Justice Roberts knows better than you.

CJ Roberts was wrong. It happens.

[Yssup Rider]

I'm sure he wishes he'd have checked with you first. Whiny. if there's one thing you know it's the fucking constitution.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I'm sure he wishes he'd have checked with you first. Whiny. if there's one thing you know it's the fucking constitution.

Dick6 Ass9... LOL

[LexusLover]

It wasn't Roberts ... he just signed off on the opinion. And BTW the history of the U.S.S.C. is full of instances in which "the Court" changed its decisions ... and/or modified, clarified, or otherwise "re-thought" the prior decision.

If I recall the opinion on Obaminable "Care" ... it was that the mandated "fine" or "assessment" was actually a "tax' and Congress had the authority to assess a "tax" on those who did not obtain insurance, since there was a rational relationship between the two.

It may be for another "Court" to decide whether in and of itself it is "Constitutional" ...

"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax."
Justice Roberts ... writing for the majority .. page 64.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It wasn't Roberts ... he just signed off on the opinion. And BTW the history of the U.S.S.C. is full of instances in which "the Court" changed its decisions ... and/or modified, clarified, or otherwise "re-thought" the prior decision.

If I recall the opinion on Obaminable "Care" ... it was that the mandated "fine" or "assessment" was actually a "tax' and Congress had the authority to assess a "tax" on those who did not obtain insurance, since there was a rational relationship between the two.

It may be for another "Court" to decide whether in and of itself it is "Constitutional" ...

"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax."
Justice Roberts ... writing for the majority .. page 64.

You need 5 votes for a majority decision. It is generally thought that he cast the deciding vote, since he is a republican politically. No one really knew which way he was going to go.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

You need 5 votes for a majority decision. It is generally thought that he cast the deciding vote, since he is a republican politically. No one really knew which way he was going to go.

He was a strict constructionist judicially and that is all that matters.

If he had followed his "Party," he would have voted to shit-can the whole deal.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Good point flighty.

Given that the "business mandate" is "settled law" also, why did Obama opt to delay it a year? I mean, its "settled law!"

Small companies are now required to do something they were not required to do in the past, provide health insurance for their employees or pay a fine. This would be an added expense to the company ledger. He wants to give the smaller companies some extra time to be able to make the adjustment.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Good point flighty.

Given that the "business mandate" is "settled law" also, why did Obama opt to delay it a year? I mean, its "settled law!"

its a lawless assault on our system of government and constituion

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

its a lawless assault on our system of government and constituion

Good Lord...why arent you the lil Drama Queen!

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

Good Lord...why arent you the lil Drama Queen!

why aren't I? because you have that position

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Small companies are now required to do something they were not required to do in the past, provide health insurance for their employees or pay a fine. This would be an added expense to the company ledger. He wants to give the smaller companies some extra time to be able to make the adjustment.

To make what "adjustment"?

Just met with two people yesterday who want employer health care coverage for their new child to add to their own. They are both YOUNG with A child under 2 years.

Under the NEWLY instituted UNDERWRITING of their employers' policies .. (they each have separate employers) .... one cannot get any coverage, because the employment relationship is as a "1099" employee (contract labor as was implemented to keep the job) AND the other one will have to pay the same premium as THOSE EMPLOYEES WITH MULTIPLE DEPENDENTS .. So a couple (or single parent) with one child will pay the same premium as a couple (or single parent) with 10 kids.

That scheme pushes the burden of those who don't know what makes one pregnant or don't care .. to those who want to use some common sense in population control by limiting their family size to that which could be AFFORDABLE.

Should they have thought about that before getting pregnant ... they did ... 2 year ago!!!!

[Yssup Rider]

Snick

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

its a lawless assault on our system of government and constituion

for a law that's deemed so wrong it makes little sense for the POTUS to give businesses another year to iron out the wrinkles and get it right, after all, it's their livelihood .... giving business owners a break, can't have that type of lawless assault now can we?