Obamacare

[jms62]

Originally Posted by wiphan

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...685080762.html

I think this will be a Double Martini Friday for Barrack.. Bad Week.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by jms62

I think this will be a Double Martini Friday for Barrack.. Bad Week.

Naw. It's all just designed to get it to the Supremes asap. The "constitutional" rulings still outnumber the "not", but it needs to go to the Supreme court.

[dellinger63]

Obamacare is supposed to save billions (medicare) yet costs billions up front?

D.O.A.!

Give the seniors their money and get out of their wallets. They're owed before anyone to the tune of $3.6 TRILLION!

Then we can talk of Obama/Hillary care. or maybe not!

[Danzig]

i think the judges ruling is correct, ulterior motives notwithstanding. how is it constitutional to demand that all citizens purchase something, and fine them when they don't? it's the one thing i've always questioned. everyone who is covered knows that the price per person would be lowered if everyone buys, but how do you force it?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think the judges ruling is correct, ulterior motives notwithstanding. how is it constitutional to demand that all citizens purchase something, and fine them when they don't?

The judges that have already ruled it constitutional have said it is so under the Commerce Clause.

I guess I've only said this 20 or so times ... the "fines" in the ACA are uncollectable, as it deliberately has a separate specific provision preventing the IRS from collecting them.

Thus, the end result is ... nobody will be fined.

Yes, they wrote it that way deliberately. They want the system up and running, they want the kinks out, they want a few years of shake out, and then they will worry in the future if fines need to be instituted in reality or not.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

The judges that have already ruled it constitutional have said it is so under the Commerce Clause.

I guess I've only said this 20 or so times ... the "fines" in the ACA are uncollectable, as it deliberately has a separate specific provision preventing the IRS from collecting them.

Thus, the end result is ... nobody will be fined.

Yes, they wrote it that way deliberately. They want the system up and running, they want the kinks out, they want a few years of shake out, and then they will worry in the future if fines need to be instituted in reality or not.

lol

just like was said on the bloomberg show the other day, half-laws. and people wonder why there is hesitation on the parts of so many! what absurdity. using us and the economy as a guinea pig while they play around with this garbage.

at any rate, i'd guess the first judges got it wrong, and these ones got it right. commerce clause my tail, the constitution gives no right to force a purchase. it happens sometimes you know, that's why they have appeals, as many times lower courts get overridden. because they get it wrong.

and you've also said, ad nauseum, that social security has traditionally been a success. doesn't make the future any different; as future expense becomes untenable. but you know that. oh, that's right. just a itty bitty tweak needed...if you consider adjusting incoming and/or outgoing a tweak. of course you also have to consider just how big that little tweak becomes the further they kick that can down the road. then there's where you talk about the payouts being why the need a tweak, while ignoring the cbo report about what happens by 2080 to the fed budget, because of ss/medicare.

[dellinger63]

What is the cost of this 'healthcare' law in terms of legal fees, so far?

Once again the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill on both sides, but I suppose the cost of legally defeating this bill will be minor in the big scheme of things and the constitution will be preserved.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

lol
just like was said on the bloomberg show the other day, half-laws. and people wonder why there is hesitation on the parts of so many! what absurdity. using us and the economy as a guinea pig while they play around with this garbage.

I don't believe this. You diss the law repeatedly, then when you finally realize that what you've been dissing it for doesn't exist, you trash the law because it doesn't exist.

Seriously? Just stop making any pretense that your opinion about the law is remotely based upon any fact or objective observation regarding it's content.

at any rate, i'd guess the first judges got it wrong, and these ones got it right.

Guess that's why it's going to the Supreme Court, as has been the intention from day one. The lower court decisions already made say "constitutional" outnumbers "not", but maybe the minority opinion will prevail in the high court as you guess.

and you've also said, ad nauseum, that social security has traditionally been a success. doesn't make the future any different; as future expense becomes untenable. but you know that. oh, that's right.
just a itty bitty tweak needed...

You can either examine the math and predictions over decades from the government and from watchdog groups and believe it, or show where it's wrong. So show where it's wrong. Oh, wait! No, let's just dismiss it out of hand because we don't like what the answer is!

Social Security has been a success because we've run up against financial shortfall projections many, many times before, and we do tweek and fix them. The proof is there. Our success is there. We have never missed a Social Security payment. It is one of the most successful social programs ever created. We know the population, the amount of taxes taken in, changes over time, that why it's looked at regularly. This is just another one of those times, but we're not even really there yet - we have years.

if you consider adjusting incoming and/or outgoing a tweak.

Geeshus cripes, 'Zig, do you not realize that we've done this 'tweek' multiple times in the past? That over 40 times, the conservative wing of government has threatened and screamed falsely about the imminent financial demise of Social Security? That projections have changed since it's inception, it's regularly reviewed, and yes, multiple "tweeks" are routinely done to Social Security all the time to keep it solvent?

The facts remain, the "outgoing current" with zero tweeks is 100% okay until 1937, then will continue to deliver 78% of current benefits for decades after that at current projections.

of course you also have to consider just how big that little tweak becomes the further they kick that can down the road

.

This sentence makes it clear you haven't looked even superficially at the long-term Social Security financing projections, based upon adjustments now and planned adjustments in the future, because the problem is due primarily to the baby boomer bubble (and was accurately predicted about 20 years ago), and the increasing population smooths out after that.

There is no "can kicked down the road". We have always made the best adjustments we have to the next 50 years or so, based upon projected populations. The fact that determining something now based upon future projections doesn't last for 100 years doesn't indicate any flaw in the system at all. It indicates responsibility and planning for the future, that we do these very projections! That's why we look at this repeatedly over the past, and have adjusted it repeatedly over the past!

then there's where you talk about the payouts being why the need a tweak, while ignoring the cbo report about what happens by 2080 to the fed budget, because of ss/medicare.

Yeah - that's exactly why we should change things now. You want to completely eliminate the program? Fine. But I, and plenty of other Americans, don't care to see us become just another second-world country.

And again, Social Security is strong, Medicare is not. Medicare is a problem (actually Medicaid more so), not Social Security. That's just the right's continuing battle cry to try and privatize it.

Glad it wasn't privatized by Wall Street since 2008, or on Friday, where would have lost huge percentages of it's value like private 401K's and other retirement plans did. Instead, our Social Security funds have weathered that storm.