Town Square

Post a New Topic

SCOTUS: John Roberts (hearts) Barack Obama

Original post made by Dorothy R, Greater Miranda, on Jun 28, 2012

The Affordable Care Act is constitutional.

Puts a death knell in any sort of public option or Medicare-for-all plan anytime soon. We are stuck with private, for-profit insurance companies under the republican plan called ObamaCare. A plan that came from the far-right Heritage Foundation, with mandates supported by Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and Mitt RomneyCare.

With national health outcomes that rank 37th in the world.

Highest cost among industrialized countries, to be 37th place. Yay! We're #37!!!! America First, ummmm, 37th!!

Highest costs, mediocre outcomes.

John Roberts is, at heart, a corporatist, even more than a Federal Society elitist. He supported health insurance companies on this Act, because it drives profits.

Should have seen this coming, but I didn't see anyone predicting Roberts the Corporatist would be the swing.

Paltry consolation? Going back and looking at all the tea baggers' predictions that the ACA was unconstitutional.

Not.

Heads are exploding as you read this. George Bush's appointee saves ObamaCare.



Comments (125)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jun 28, 2012 at 8:21 am

Trust me, we agree that it should have been knocked down. Different reasons, of course, but the bottom line, it should have been knocked down.

Don't worry, it will end in universal health care. The first thing anyone with private insurance will do is drop their plans, since now it is much cheaper to pay the "tax" ( which is only paid by those who don't buy insurance..first time I have ever heard of a tax on something you DON'T buy..really bassackwards). Employers will drop their employer coverage, preferring the cheaper..uh..tax. Millions of us will go on "government" care, insurance companies will go out of bussiness as we know it, we will have an escalating crisis of "uninsured", there will be more screaming about more money for the "uninsured" and soon we will all be on government care.

Then, as in France, insurance companies will figure out that government care does not provide the timely and necessary options that people want, they will start supplemental insurance options for people to buy, which will cost much more than the options we have in States that didn't have all the mandated coverage that States like California have, but are now mandated in Obamacare, and people who want better care will pay for not only that, but their "tax" for everyone else. So instead of a 26 year old paying $150/month for their medical care, like they can now, they will be paying..well, a cousin in France pays $500/month for her supplemental, AND the taxes for the "free" health care through the government.

The biggest losers in this game are the young. We have eaten our young.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dorothy R
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jun 28, 2012 at 8:26 am

France spends far lees that America and gets better outcomes, on everything from infant mortality to life expectancy.

I too, have a cousin in France who looks at me in horror when I describe American citizens' handouts to private, for profit insurance companies. Then I told her about Meidcare for seniors and she smiled.

Asked why we penalize everyone except seniors.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dolf Clement
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 28, 2012 at 8:53 am

What is the GOP replacement, have I missed it?

Romney will stop talking aboout this in a week. He doesn't have replacement and he has to run back to his experience at Bain Capital as outsourcer-in-chief.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dorothy R
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:00 am

Dolf: Speaker Bonehner has already said they do not have a plan, on no less than Rush.

"I got a call from Speaker Boehner last Friday," said Rush Limbaugh on his radio show Wednesday. "He called a lot of people and he was telling us what the Republican plan is. And it was repeal, repeal, repeal. Regardless of what happens. He made it clear that repeal—and not repeal and replace, but repeal—was going to be the focal point for the House Republicans."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nuances
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:10 am

"Trust me, we agree that it should have been knocked down. Different reasons, of course, but the bottom line, it should have been knocked down. "

Not so sure about that. Look, I actually think that it's a bad law, but that doesn't necessarily make it unconstitutional. Read Justice Robert's explanation for upholding it as a tax. He makes no judgement on the merits of the law, just it's constitutionality (as he should), and he clearly states that it's merits need to be decided by the legislative branch (again, at it should).

If anything, this can help Romney and the Republicans because it "sends it back to the people." Basically, he can just say, if you don't like it, you need to vote for people who will repeal it. Given that a majority of Americans don't like the law, that should be a slam dunk.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dorothy R
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:21 am

Nuances -

"Given that a majority of Americans don't like the law, that should be a slam dunk."

True, the name Obamacare is toxic in polls.

But the actual benefits poll very highly, even among republicans:

From Rueters: Web Link

* Eighty percent of Republicans favor "creating an insurance pool where small businesses and uninsured have access to insurance exchanges to take advantage of large group pricing benefits." That's backed by 75 percent of independents.

* Fifty two percent of Republicans favor "allowing children to stay on parents insurance until age 26." That's backed by 69 percent of independents.

* Seventy eight percent of Republicans support "banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; 86 percent of Republicans favor "banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill." Those are backed by 82 percent of independents and 87 percent of independents.

* One provision that isn't backed by a majority of Republicans: The one "expanding Medicaid to families with incomes less than $30,000 per year."


Romney will NOT want to re-litigate this in an election year. Once the questions are asked about replacement, he's screwed. The replacement has to look like RomneyCare or folks are going to be really unhappy.

Mitt Etch-A-Sketch said in 2006: "the individual mandate is about personal responsibility"

How the heck did that guy ever become the nominee?








 +   Like this comment
Posted by teleprompter death panels
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:31 am

Mitt just spoke, was itching to say death panels but it wasn't on the teleprompter.

Mitt forgot to tell us that folks in Mass love his RomneyCare, the same as ObamaCare.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by scotus blog
a resident of Woodside
on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:48 am

Will Romney pick better justices than Bush and his daddy?

Bush picked Roberts.

Bush daddy picked David Souter.

Mitt will do better. He's got an Etch a Sketch.

I like the post about heads exploding


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dorothy R
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:59 am

I do not want insurance companies coming between me and my doctor. I do not want to pay more, just because of gender.

I want Americans in poverty to get care.

I want 50 million uninsured Americans to get coverage.

I want preventive care to be available to all Americans.

I want personal responsibility, with Americans required to get insurance if they can afford it.

I want Americans to get the quality healthcare that other industrialized democracies get.

I DO NOT want Congress to waste time on another repeal vote. Of course, they will.

Time to get America back to work. Where are the JOBS, Speaker Boenher?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Unhappy with Our New Tax
a resident of South of Midtown
on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:37 am

As a candidate in 2008, President Obama promised not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250K a year.

But the Supreme Court ruling is that Obamacare IS a tax, this new tax for families making even $30K a year will be just over $2,000, in 2014, IF Obamacare remains the law of the land.

So we had better support candidates in November that clearly do not want Obamacare, like Mitt Romney for President, who has said he will repeal it, OR we all had better get used to our new tax. It's just that simple.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jun 28, 2012 at 10:43 am

Not only that, Unhappy, when, ever, have you been told you must pay a "tax" on something you DON'T buy?

Next, we have to pay a "tax" if we don't have enough children? Or don't buy the right foods? Don't buy a car?

The whole thing is completely absurd.

The only good news I can think of is maybe,just maybe, Americans will wake up to the slippery slope we have been on since FDRs "New Deal" and Johnson's Great Society.

We are at the end of our Constitutional thread, folks. November determines if that thread breaks or if we start the long process back to individual liberty.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by what tax on the poor?
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Jun 28, 2012 at 11:13 am

what tax for two thousand dollars on families making thirty grand? Is that a Fox news type of tax?

That family is at the poverty level, what tax must they pay?


Or are you talking about the requirement for freeloaders freeriders to get the guts to have personal responsibility and get covered like the rest of America.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by freeloaders
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jun 28, 2012 at 11:52 am

The tax they're talking about is the free rider penalty.

Perspective and Unhappy do not have medical insurance, so they will be fined for their lack of personal responsibility. For shame.

I am tired of paying for free riders like Perspective that show up in an emergency room and used the ER as primary care.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dorothy R
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jun 28, 2012 at 11:59 am

Good stuff in Mitt RomneyCare's website:

"As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts"

Father of ObamaRomneyCare, Mitt RomneyCare, will appoint more like judges in the mold of the guy who approved ObamaCare.

Must be tough times for the tea bag protest crowd to think that's who they are voting for this November. How the heck did that guy ever become the nominee? I guess they all bought the etch A Sketch lies.

Remember: "* Seventy eight percent of Republicans support "banning insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions; 86 percent of Republicans favor "banning insurance companies from cancelling policies because a person becomes ill.""


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Romneycare tax
a resident of University South
on Jun 28, 2012 at 12:30 pm

Under Romneycare in massachuttsets, only 1% pay the penalty for not having insurance.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by SCOTUS
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Jun 28, 2012 at 1:37 pm

This court sure had a busy session supporting big government. Just ask Gov Brewer in Arizona, or the court in Montana. Los Federales over the states. We were better off withlibs on the court.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dorothy R
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jun 28, 2012 at 2:58 pm

Poor tea party, they're still in shock. Mitt was saying last night " I bet Obama can't sleep tonight".

regarding the crazy tax talk, here's a good summation:

"Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar."

Oh, poor Mittens, his own words always come back, don't they? Words from just a couple years ago. Web Link

Who IS this guy, and how did he become the tea party's nominee? I can't imagine either are very happy about the marriage.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by SCOTUS
a resident of St. Claire Gardens
on Jun 28, 2012 at 3:23 pm

They're not in shock, they're busy watchin Fox and copying down talking points. They will appear again. Late at night. When the lights get turned on in the kitchen....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 28, 2012 at 5:19 pm

"This court sure had a busy session supporting big government. Just ask Gov Brewer in Arizona, or the court in Montana. Los Federales over the states. We were better off withlibs on the court."

Nothing new there. Go back to December 2000, when SCOTUS trampled Florida's state's rights so it could put in a "conservative" POTUS.

Remember history: States' Rights became a conservative issue in modern times only when the Warren SCOTUS began mandating integration and (horrors) permitting racially mixed marriages throughout the US. That is still the total scope of conservatives' interest in States' Rights.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 28, 2012 at 5:41 pm



Roberts rejected judicial activism and basically said-you elected these people who passed this law--if you do not like it throw them and Obama out in the next election.

Reading over the Roberts opinion, the opinion strikes me as quite conservative.

1/- The opinion starts from the premise that the federal government is a government of limited powers.

2/-The opinion goes on to reject the federal government's power to regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause.

3/-Roberts then goes on to reject a broad reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause.

4/-Roberts reaffirms states rights regarding Medicare

All in all a Conservative ruling


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fred Carlos
a resident of Professorville
on Jun 28, 2012 at 6:17 pm

"All in all a Conservative ruling " that validates Obamacare.

uh-huh.

Let's look at some conservative reaction:

* This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dred Scott. This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration.

* Rush Limbaugh's health care meltdown: The IRS "has just become Barack Obama's domestic army"

* Brent Bozell on John Roberts: "He will be seen as a traitor to his philosophy."

* Bozell again: "People are already talking about the possibility that [Roberts] could be replaced as Chief Justice."

* Roberts "is going down in history as the justice that shredded the constitution and turned it into a worthless piece of parchment "

* John Roberts' Wikipedia Page Vandalized: 'Chief Traitor'

* "A 21st Century Dred Scott Decision"

Conservatives are SO HOPPING MAD, they want to leave the country. But there's a small problem:
"Breaking: Conservatives planning to leave U.S., but can't find wealthy Western democracy without universal health care."

;-)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by WilliamR
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jun 28, 2012 at 6:30 pm

Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to attack Chief Justice Roberts. Maybe the logic goes this way: By approving 'Obamacare' he energizes the Republican party, Romney wins in November, the GOP takes control of the Senate, and the next Congress repeals the law in a heartbeat. The Supreme Court doesn't have their fingerprints on the repeal. In the meantime, by approving the law now, the Court looks good in the eyes of those who support Obamacare.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 28, 2012 at 6:46 pm



Actually the Roberts decision defines Obama care as a federal tax

A huge tax-in fact-lets see have that plays out among the voters who will be taxed.

Any tax can be dismissed by Congress-any time

Again - the Roberts ruling is a Conservative ruling.

On health-35% of Americans are obese and their illnesses will bankrupt any health care and our economy.

400,000 Americans die of smoking related diseases every year and they cost a lot in their last months of life--25%+ of Americans still smoke-

-in Stanford it is around 2%

How about we tax the obese and the smokers?

As they are costing us all a very lot of money by their habits

We tax other groups who have high rates of disease because of their life style habits.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 28, 2012 at 6:51 pm


Correction

We -should- tax other groups who have high rates of disease because of their life style habits


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fred Carlos
a resident of Professorville
on Jun 28, 2012 at 6:53 pm

"A huge tax-"

Whaaaaaa...?

Are you talking about the penalty on someone who can afford insurance but elects to not take the personal responsibility to get it?

But interesting Sharon wants new taxes on smokers and fat folk.

-------------------------
"By approving 'Obamacare' he energizes the Republican party"

Now that's funny - the ol' double reverse super secret failure in court. I'm looking around for energized republicans on various threads, don't see them.


"the Court looks good in the eyes of those who support Obamacare" You're saying ScalitoThomasRoberts want to look good to Democrats?

Pass that over, share some, it must be good...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by uncle Fred
a resident of Addison School
on Jun 28, 2012 at 8:28 pm

Overall, a good thing for the country. The other side has no plan other than to outlaw lawyers and patient rights.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:29 pm

>>"How about we tax the obese and the smokers? "

How about we charge them higher premiums based on their lifestyle choices.

If you have auto accidents that are your fault or have moving violations, car insurance companies up the rates of your mandatory car insurance.

No one has any problem with that, so why not apply the same risk-based premiums to those who engage in health risky behaviours.

Seems logical and fair to me.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Someone has to pay
a resident of Barron Park
on Jun 28, 2012 at 9:44 pm

"No one has any problem with that, so why not apply the same risk-based premiums to those who engage in health risky behaviours."

Unfortunately, that would just compel them not to buy insurance at all. But because emergency rooms are required to treat everyone and since those "who engage in heath risky behaviors" will still get treatment even without insurance, everyone else will bear the cost of their care.

If the Republicans and Tea Party folks are really all for liberty, why don't they call to remove the requirement for emergency rooms to treat everyone? Isn't that just an overreaching government mandate?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Outside Observer
a resident of another community
on Jun 28, 2012 at 11:29 pm

>>"remove the requirement for emergency rooms to treat everyone"

That would eliminate the need for the health insurance mandate. Works for me. Either have a valid insurance card, or cash, or no treatment.

If charities want to pay the bill for those who won't get insurance, that's fine. Just don't ask tax payers to do it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jun 29, 2012 at 5:17 am

In the real world, higher risk behavior requires higher premiums. Medical insurance for those who are fat, smokers, or addicts is higher. Car insurance on those with history of accidents is higher. Why? They cost more.

So, of course, now that the government is in charge of health insurance, we must tax fat people and smokers more. Lifestyle choices are not my problem to pay for. Why should I subsidize poor lifestyle choices when I take care of myself?

Once the government gets involved and is using our money, we get the choice on who to pay for and who not to pay for.

But, of course, all reason left this debate long ago. Now it is time to watch the costs soar, to the surprise of the left, completely predictable though, as employers dump their employer plans, preferring to pay the fine, and tell their employees "buy your own". Then employees find out they have to pay more than they used to because now they are forced to choose between Fed Mandated coverage for Jaguar level, or nothing. So then the employees will say, "no thanks", and go on the public option, and we will have long lines and rationing for millions more, still on the public dollar being paid for by others, like now, but even more of them. Then the screaming will begin that there isn't enough tax money for the "poor" on public health care, we have "X million more uninsured", and the battle will never end.

It is sad. There were such simple solutions, but they were overshadowed by the leftist "universal health care is a right" crowd.

If I didn't have kids, I would just be laughing. Instead I am crying for the future we have handed our kids. A future with a USA govt now officially able to tell them what to do, or tax them if they don't, and tell the producers what to produce, or tax them if they don't. For the first time in our history, we can now be taxed on something we DON'T buy, with no redress. If we want to sue, suddenly it isn't a tax, according to the SCOTUS.

We have handed them less freedom than we have ever had. Even King George didn't force people to buy something they didn't want, with no ability to defend themselves in Court.

Well, Obama and the left got everything they wanted. Have fun with that.
Completely predictable.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by VoxPop
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jun 29, 2012 at 8:01 am

Then it's obviously time for you to leave the country, Perspective, since, according to you, America is now a such a terrible place.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jun 29, 2012 at 10:52 am

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Peter Johnson
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Jun 29, 2012 at 11:29 am

Ignore perspective... the whole tax thing is a Fox lie they can't substantiate.

Funniest part of this is that Mitt Rmoney said the only difference between Romneycare and Obamacare is that the ACA was unconstitutional. It isn't. Now we know there is no difference between Romony/ObamaCare.

That tells us about Romneys charactor. Everytime he bashes ObamaCare, he is bashing his plan, a plan that WORKS in Massachutsetts.

Why? It tells us he is only interested in one thing - he will lie and do anything to get elected. The poster above claims Mitt will ignore this after a week.

Wrong. As bad as this issue is for Mitt, he can't use the economy or Bain anymore... polls show they don't work for Multiple Choice Mitt.

All he has left is the ACA.

And a billion dollars in negative ads in the swing states.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jun 29, 2012 at 11:40 am

Nice work from pulitzer winner Gene Robinson, on this is just a start - we have a long way to go.

How far? A reminder:

"The World Health Organization gives the U.S. health system an overall ranking of 37th in the world, far below other Western democracies. The CIA World Factbook — hardly the work of a bunch of left-leaning one-worlders — reports that life expectancy in the United States is not just lower than in other industrialized countries but also lower than in Jordan and Bosnia.Infant mortality in this country, according to the CIA, exceeds that of Slovenia and Cuba. It is possible to quibble with these figures but not to ignore them. We should be ashamed of ourselves."

Web Link

Mr Robinson is correct, we have much to do:
- we can listen to perspective and the teaparty conspiracy theory fringe and try to live down to Somalia-like standards
- we can continue to move forward, rejecting the political party that wants to use coupons and vouchers to replace Medicare.

Can you imagine being a 70 year old with typical health conditions, trying to buy affordable insurance with a Republican Party coupon? Tragic. Save Medicare and the social safety net from the crazies.

Move forward - reject Mitt and the crazies.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Bad Erika
a resident of Atherton
on Jun 29, 2012 at 11:55 am

Tweet from GOP House Speaker John Boenher.

Boehner: "This is a dark day for America. If we are forced to have healthcare, it's only a matter of time before we have education."

and pay equality, too

Thank you, Borowitz report.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by no hating, killa
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 29, 2012 at 12:52 pm

The hatehs don't answer the tax questions. They also don't tell us how they cover 30-40 million peeps with healthcare. I just wanna see a doc, even just a nurse.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jun 29, 2012 at 2:36 pm

Let's look at the how the dems and repubs plan on helping American's survive healthcare. First, the President yesterday.

Quote:

- "First, if you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance -- this law will only make it more secure and more affordable.
- Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive.
- They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions.
- They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick.
- They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason.
- They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms -- a provision that's already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance.
- And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care.

There's more.

- Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent's health care plans -- a provision that's already helped 6 million young Americans.
- And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs -- a discount that's already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each.

All of this is happening because of the Affordable Care Act."

End quote, from President Obama. Web Link

Nice list. Concise and to the point, no spiking the ball. Well done Mr President.

Next post, the repub plan.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Downtown North
on Jun 29, 2012 at 2:38 pm

"The World Health Organization gives the U.S. health system an overall ranking of 37th in the world, far below other Western democracies. ... We should be ashamed of ourselves."

No. We are proud to stand against the socialized medicine that infests those top-ranked countries. America is and must remain the bulwark against socialism and communism.

Every war has its collateral damage. Buck up and be brave, Americans. Health comes with a terrible price.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jun 29, 2012 at 2:46 pm

Mitt hasn't offered anything except a lame promise to repeal (he won't) without replacement.

So that leaves the GOP House. Today, on Morning Joe (the former GOP congressman from Florida - ask Joe about his intern)

*** ERIC CANTOR: "Tom (Brokaw), you knew back in 2009 when the Obamacare bill was being considered on the House floor, we put forward our alternative. So to sit here and say we don't have a replacement is not correct. What we have now, though, is the challenge of repealing this law."

Let's look at that GOP replacement "bill" offered in June 2009.

4 pages. no numbers. No effort. No results. Zero, zip, nada.

It was the equivalent of scrawling a page, the morning your term paper is due.

A failure.

It's the reason there are no SMART CONSERVATIVES on this board defending republicans - there is NO DEFENSE possible - they have nothing for Americans, only for their rich contributors.

Ready for the GOP plan? Don't blink.

Here goes:

*** "House Republicans presented a four-page outline of their health care reform plan Wednesday but said they didn't know yet how much it would cost, how they would pay for it and how many of the nearly 50 million Americans without insurance would be covered by it."

Web Link Most charitable headline of the year? right here: "Republicans Unveil Health Plan but Are Thin on Details"

Yeah.

Amazing.

This is why Mitt Romney will run from healthcare.

This is why the polls have started shifting. Wait a couple weeks, it'll be obvious.

Cantor: "you knew back in 2009 when the Obamacare bill was being considered on the House floor, we put forward our alternative."




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jun 29, 2012 at 2:50 pm

There ya go, boys and girls, simple choice:

1. The Obama Affordable Care Act - constitutional, and working to help millions of Americans today, with tens of millions in the next year or two

or

2. the non-existent GOP crayon drawing/plan, along with the GOP taking away Medicare as we know it

That's why the smart conservatives are hiding from this thread - it's a GOP loss. They're embarrassed, and should be.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by common sense
a resident of Midtown
on Jun 29, 2012 at 3:23 pm

Every government entity - city, state, school district, etc. should now stop offering health insurance to their employees & retirees, pay the tax, and have employees go on to the health exchanges. All the workers still get health coverage, all the government entities save a bundle from their budgets, a win-win for everyone!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nancy Murray
a resident of Stanford
on Jun 29, 2012 at 3:26 pm

Nice list.

I keep waiting for the compelling conservative solution, when in fact, ObamaCare. Is the conservative solution. Maybe I'm really more interested in a truly liberal solution, as ObamaCare is just Romney and Gingrich's solution.

But what I'm really waiting for is intelligent conservative dialogue, not the stupid "its a phantom tax increase" canard.

A tax increase on who, specifically?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jun 29, 2012 at 3:54 pm

Mitt Romney (the previous version of Mitt Etch A Sketch Romney, ie.. the sane version, from a couple years ago) said the individual mandate "is the personal responsibility plan."

The whole quote - Mitt Romney supports the individual mandate, and explains why:

"Right now people who can afford to buy insurance make the decision, 'I'm not going to buy insurance. I'm going to be a free rider.' And if I get sick or get in a serious accident, then government's going to pay for me. That, in my view is the big-government solution we have right now.

The alternative <ObamaRomneyCare> – there are a couple of alternatives – one is to say to employers you must give insurance to every one of your employees. I said, 'No, I don't want to do that. That's going to kill jobs.' And the other alternative is to say to people if you can afford to get insurance, you ought to buy insurance. And if you don't buy it you're going to get penalized with a higher tax rate for not having gotten insurance. Now you tell me which of those is the big-government plan and which is the personal responsibility plan."

What happened to the sane version of Mitt Romney? Too many tea bags blinding him, or is it his personal ambition to be president that is blinding him?

Such a radical change in personality - it must be the personal ambition and vanity.

Mitt: the individual mandate "is the personal responsibility plan."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by rebates cash?
a resident of another community
on Jun 29, 2012 at 5:24 pm

"by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your healthcare"

Those bloodsucker CEOs have to rebate us some of our cash if they take too much bonuses.

Very cool.

Got my vote


 +   Like this comment
Posted by rebates cash?
a resident of another community
on Jun 30, 2012 at 8:16 am

"by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your healthcare"

How/when do we know if we get a rebate?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by birther
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Jun 30, 2012 at 9:35 am

Was Roberts born in Kenya? I want to see his long form birth certificate.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jun 30, 2012 at 9:40 am

Romney is no conservative. Why do you think he had so much contention in the primaries? This was one of the reasons we despised him.

Conservative, constitutional solutions have been proposed for literally years, brought to the forefront in the 2004 election. If you don't know them by now, there is probably no hope you ever will. But just in case...

1) Let each of us who WISH to buy catastrophic insurance without the mandated frills that double our costs.

2) Let insurance companies compete across State lines, instead of blocking competition ( the true function of the Commerce clause)

3) Tort reform: Stop the absurd money chasing medical lawsuits

4) Change the tax code: Stop tax credits for employer based insurance, give credits to individuals buying their own private insurance.

5) Incentives: No proof of medical insurance, no driver's license.

These would halve the private medical insurance costs, get everyone who can afford insurance ( however you define that), or who already qualifies for govt insurance ( MediCal in California) but hasn't enrolled, onto insurance in order to drive a car.Remaining uninsured, probably about 10 10 million. See who they are, devise policy to make sure they get coverage.

We didn't need a 2700 page bill nobody who voted for it read, shoved through with no input from dissidents, without any ability of the public to read it, using end-run rules to get a vote on it, originating in the Senate which constitutionally can not originate taxes but which our dear SCOTUS has now changed the "meaning" of penalty to "tax" when it applies to taking it, but not when it applies to a citizen's right to redress, with 21 new "taxes" in it, none of which fit any definition of tax in our tax code, empowering our Federal government to "tax" something we DON'T do if it is for 'our own good", and to tell an entire industry to produce something.

Coming soon, a tax if you don't go to the gym, don't have the right number of kids, don't buy wheat made by the farmer forced to grow wheat instead of corn. All for "our general welfare", which was not at all meant how we talk about it today.

Where does this end? Who is left to protect us from a federal government grown out of control? Nobody. I cry for the country we just handed our kids.

Not at a good place.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jun 30, 2012 at 10:06 am

Perspective brought up taxes again - but did not answer the question of why he supported this false statement: "this new tax for families making even $30K a year will be just over $2,000"

Lies, lies and more lies -- never believe Perspective unless you verify the claims (lies) yourself.

Then he runs away and deflects to a bunch of nonsense.

Like these whoppers:

* "the GOP has had answers since 2004" - if so, why didn't they do anything? They had Bush/Cheney, the House and the Senate. The only thing I remember is the unfunded Medicare Part D. The GOP did NOTHING when they controlled EVERYTHING. Well, except cratering the economy and doubling the national debt, along with America's first trillion dollar deficit, courtesy of Bush/Cheney and their advisers, who now work for Romney

Saying the GOP had, or has healthcare solutions, is a farcical statement.

* The "plank" of moving healthcare away from employers is absurd -- a political non-starter. Go ask 100 folks here in the valley, I bet 80/100 will call you insane -- no way they want to lose their healthcare from their job, all based on the "promise" of lower premiums. Nonsense!

* Tort reform? killing all the lawyers would save less than 1% of healthcare costs and give Americans no protections when insurers and medicine screw over an American or one of our kids. Just another fringe talking point. Although if we killed all the lawyers, we'd have less GOP politicians. Go to Web Link and scroll to the june 30 'toon.

* Is Perspective another Romney "freeloader/freerider"? Someone stated above: "Perspective and Unhappy do not have medical insurance, so they will be fined for their lack of personal responsibility. For shame."

* Romney says he is a "severe conservative". Perspective calls him a LIAR, much the same as Newt called Mitt a LIAR. Nice club ya got there... is it hard to march the tea baggers lockstep to the polls with your fingers pinching each others'nose the whole way?

Finally: "Coming soon, a tax if you don't go to the gym," what a ridiculous partisan piece of rhetoric! Perspective doesn't believe in the requirement of a well-off American not taking personal responsibility of having insurance.

Perspective is NOT a conservative -- does not believe in personal responsibility.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by compare n contrast
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 30, 2012 at 10:19 am

Compare the list of benefits the President outlined with the ACA, quoted above, with the claims that perpetive claims might happen someday.

Not even close.

The repugnicans are in the insurance companies pockets. Stupid is as stupid does.

This ain't even close. Barack Obama has our backs.

With healthcare.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jun 30, 2012 at 10:31 am

Compare - you mean this list? Quote:

- "First, if you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance -- this law will only make it more secure and more affordable.

- Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive.

- They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions.

- They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick.

- They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason.

- They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms -- a provision that's already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance.

- And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care.

There's more.

- Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent's health care plans -- a provision that's already helped 6 million young Americans.

- And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs -- a discount that's already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each.

All of this is happening because of the Affordable Care Act."

End quote, from President Obama.

Perspective -- let's keep arguing healthcare, its a real winner for Romney, the guy you hate but will vote for. Haven't you figured out why no other conservatives are bothering to post, trying to defend ObamneyCare (as Gov Jindal (R) called it yesterday on a *Romney* conference call) or the GOP lack of plans?

Have a great day, I'm off to the game!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jun 30, 2012 at 11:09 am

Mateo: Every single "promise"you just posted is a lie. Millions of us have already lost our insurance because premiums went up 30% after Obamacare mandates passed and we couldn't afford it or our employer couldn't, switching us to a lesser insurance.
It was ALREADY against the law for insurance to raise premiums or drop people on the basis of their getting a condition.
There was ALREADY no discrimination against pre-existing conditions for children if the children were on parent's insurance when they were born or adopted. The pre-existing refers to the equivalent of people trying to buy auto insurance AFTER the car is wrecked.
I don't WANT preventive care paid for by insurance I am mandated to buy. I WANT the freedom to pay out of pocket for my own preventive care, and buy ONLY catastrophic insurance.

What about this is so hard to understand? We used to be adults, now we need Uncle Sam and Aunt Samantha to take care of us because we are incapable of making choices?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jun 30, 2012 at 11:14 am

As for the 26 year olds: WHAT??? We are adult enough to sign contracts and join the military at 18, adult enough to buy booze and cigarettes at 21, but NOT adult enough to work and buy our own insurance until we are 26? What next? "Children" under 26 are by law required to have their parents let them live under their rooves, eat their food, and drive their car?

As for Medicare: 1/2 Trillion PER YEAR cut from Medicare in the last 3 years. You have NO idea what this has done to Home Care and Outpatient services. None. The damage is incredible. But no worries, Obama says that supposedly saving a few bucks on a medicine makes up for it. This is like magician blowing smoke and disappearing. All illusion.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jun 30, 2012 at 11:24 am

There ya go folks - he calls it ALL LIES.

Tea bags falling from conspiracy theory dark clouds, with only tin foil hats to protect us from the kenyan Socialist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

- "First, if you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance -- this law will only make it more secure and more affordable.

- Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive.

- They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions.

- They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick.

- They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason.

- They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms -- a provision that's already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance.

- And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care.

There's more.

- Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent's health care plans -- a provision that's already helped 6 million young Americans.

- And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs -- a discount that's already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each.

All of this is happening because of the Affordable Care Act."

End quote, from President Obama.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mom in Palo Alto
a resident of Meadow Park
on Jun 30, 2012 at 1:27 pm

@ perspective

My daughter turned 18 in December in her senior year in high school. She went to college, and graduated in 3 2/3 school years (=she graduated a quarter early), while also working part time at the same time, with no health insurance of course. What did she do wrong? You tell me !

She turned 22 in December of the year she graduated from college, in 2009. She was dropped by our insurance smack on her birthday at age 22, in December 2009, while still in college. The school insurance dropped her in spring since she was no longer enrolled. She had a job lined up, with health insurance, only it started in September 2009, 5 months later.

Is this situation proper? Do you suggest she should not have gone to college because of this? She was going to be without insurance through no fault of her own. We ended up buying her temporary coverage that was ridiculous, covered next to nothing, had a high deductible and was not cheap.

Note that our daughter was actually a lucky college graduate in 2009. About 1/2 of them could not find a job at the bottom of the great recession.

Insurance companies should have to cover children who are in college or just out of college, to age 26. It is only the right thing to do. Or else do you suggest that people stop going to college?

You know "perspective", through your posts you come across as a completely heartless person. How can you feel good about yourself, being so heartless?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ronnie
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 30, 2012 at 7:04 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ronnie
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 30, 2012 at 7:07 pm

keep in mind folks thirty million Americans get basic coverage. Not a caddallac plan, just bronze level.

So they can work, live and move our country forward.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by move forward
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 1, 2012 at 10:22 am

Awesome! Finally get this country back on track from the disastrous BushCheney calamity!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 1, 2012 at 2:55 pm

The only rational way to interpet this decision is that Congress has the right to compell behavior on any issue(s) it wishes. The SCOTUS will allow it, due to taxation clauses in the Constitution...or Commerce clauses (if another leftist gets appointed to the SCOTUS). Maybe even a new rightist appointed will follow Robert's lead.

Medical care is not an individual right, despite the lefitie's claim to the contrary. Ever notice how they always claim the glories of other socialst countries (they call them "industrialized" countries). As we watch Western Europe sink into an economic morass, it will seldom be heard that socialized medicine is at the root of it. Of course, public and private unions, with their control over elected officials, follow on from the 'right' of medical care.

The central issue with medical care is to drive down costs. The single, most potent way is tort reform: Loser pays. The leftie lawyers (Dems) will never agree with anything that interferes with their personal greed. 'Loser pays' will make them think, and focus their minds, before they jump.

ObamaCare sets the stage for massive evacuation from company-provided medical insurance. Payment of the penalty is much cheaper than providing insurance premiums. If a company, with fewer than 50 employess, determines to not hire more workers, because it would force them into a mandatory provide system...where they can decide to pay the penalty, instead of the premium. Of course, they could also decide to stay below the 50 employee limit, thus limiting new hiring. These market distortions will create more...Greece.

It would be interesting to hear from Bill Johnson (PA Weekly) on this one. Bill: Are you above, or below, 50 employees? If above, what is your approach? If below, what will you do, if you are close to 50? If mandatory provision will cost you about $12k per year per employee, how does/will your business be affected? For example, are you currently outsourcing any of your operations?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jul 1, 2012 at 4:51 pm

Mom in PA:
1)WHAT DID SHE DO WRONG? You are joking, right? She did NOT buy the health insurance available to EVERY SINGLE STUDENT. It is so cheap, ridiculously cheap, because the pool of insured is the healthiest pool in the nation, it is foolish not to buy it. In fact, you have to OPT OUT of it, purposefully turn it down, or it goes on to the college bill.
2) BS on the "no insurance for 3 1/2 years"...we already had available our kids could be on our insurance until they were 21 OR 22 if in college. So, unless YOU chose to not have insurance, she could have been on yours if for some reason she just didn't want to take advantage of the incredibly cheap college insurance.

Sorry, I know the drill. Can't pull it on me.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jul 1, 2012 at 4:55 pm

Gary: You are absolutely correct. In France, I personally have family who have kept their business below 10 employees ( there, the magic number was 10) in order to prevent tumbling into huge taxes and regulations over who they must hire. Another one tried to hire ONE person to file and clean and answer the phone to leave him free to do the job that made the money..she was so awful, he preferred to fire her and pay the TWO year salary that the law required, than keep her. Of course, he decided to never hire anyone again. That was 20 years ago, and he hasn't. He preferred to clean and file himself, than pay someone else so he could do his actual work. He self-limited his business potential.

And that is what we are getting here. This was just yet another nail in the coffin of growth here.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jul 1, 2012 at 5:00 pm

ronnie: The "30 million" number was a massive lie. But, we have been over this already. 10 million couldn't afford insurance and didn't have it. The rest were young and didn't think they needed insurance, so did't buy it ( no incentive to do so, was there?), or were already eligible for MedicAid, and hadn't signed up, or were illegal.

Well, the very young and very old voted this Party into power, they will pay the price. Now the "young" "tax" will be much higher than it would have been if they had just bought the insurance in the first place, and the "old" Medicare will continue to be cut to pay for the "coverage" of those younger.

Very sad. The young and old were duped. I wouldn't care if we didn't have young or old loved ones, and if I didn't hope to be old one day.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by VoxPop
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 1, 2012 at 5:29 pm

Re tort reform: litigation costs and malpractice insurance account for one to one-and-a-half percent of total healthcare costs in this country, basically a rounding error. So that's a red herring when you're talking about large reductions in medical costs.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 1, 2012 at 6:01 pm

>Re tort reform: litigation costs and malpractice insurance account for one to one-and-a-half percent of total healthcare costs in this country, basically a rounding error.

Complete nosnense, as usual, from a leftie. The costs of defenseive medicine are HUGE! The next time you go to your doctor, and wonder why so many tests are being ordered, just remeber it is NOT all about you, it is ALSO about your doctor protecting his ass...due to potential liability.

'Loser pays' will cut this stuff off at its roots. A side benefit will be that we no longer need to listen to craven lawyer ads on television, trying to entice people to call them for a potential lawsuit.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by VoxPop
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 1, 2012 at 6:09 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 1, 2012 at 6:45 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by what tax?
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 1, 2012 at 7:26 pm

What taxx r u talking about?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Emily Draggit
a resident of Hoover School
on Jul 2, 2012 at 9:34 am

I am confused about the tax, also. I haven't seen it. When dies it start? Is it real or just the wierdo's fantasy?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 2, 2012 at 11:51 am

>I am confused about the tax, also. I haven't seen it. When dies it start?

It will start in 2014 and increase each and every year, forever. It is a tax on those who do not currently have health insurance, the majority of whom who earn less than $250k per year. In other words, it violates Obama's promise. He lied.

However, a more fundamental issue is the increased premiums due to health care COSTS. From the IRS site (related to the ACA):

"Reporting Employer Provided Health Coverage in Form W-2
The Affordable Care Act requires employers to report the cost of coverage under an employer-sponsored group health plan on an employee's Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, in Box 12, using Code DD. Many employers are eligible for transition relief for tax-year 2012 and beyond, until the IRS issues final guidance for this reporting requirement.

The amount reported does not affect tax liability, as the value of the employer excludible contribution to health coverage continues to be excludible from an employee's income, and it is not taxable. This reporting is for informational purposes only, to show employees the value of their health care benefits so they can be more informed consumers."

Unless, and until, health care costs come DOWN, there is an ever increasing "tax" on every worker. Here's how it works: The employer determines how much he/she wants to spend per employee, let's just say $60k...this is the FTE (full time equivalent). If the employer is paying $12k for health insurance premiums, the employee gets $48k. If health care costs increase, the employee income is that much less (all other things static). If the employer wants to add empoyees, it is much cheaper to do so in India or China, for example...but they will not do so in Europe, where the state ALREADY covers the cost of medical care...too expensive to pay the salaries, because 'free' medical (socialist)care is built into the salaries.

The only way to fundamentally address the issue is to REDUCE medical care costs. The most potent way to start the conversation is tort reform, in order to stop defensive medicine. This means 'loser pays', in lawsuits. However, don't wait for Obama to support that common sense conversation...he is in bed with the Dem lawyers, whose greed knows no bounds...and that greed ends up as a tax on the workers of the USA.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 2, 2012 at 12:21 pm

Gary thinks "This reporting is for informational purposes only, to show employees the value of their health care benefits so they can be more informed consumers" is a bad thing.

Gary: "It is a tax on those who do not currently have health insurance"

You mean the small amount of freeloaders (maybe 2%, only 1% under romneycare) who can afford insurance who are a burden on the rest of America? I thought Gary always pretended to be a big believer in personal responsibility and no-free-lunch.

Besides, it's NOT a tax according to your candidate Mitt Rmoney today "FEHRNSTROM: The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court's ruling that the mandate was a tax."

Mitt, on freeloaders like Gary, the freeriders on coasting on America's coattails: "the other alternative is to say to people if you can afford to get insurance, you ought to buy insurance. And if you don't buy it you're going to get penalized with a higher tax rate for not having gotten insurance. Now you tell me which of those is the big-government plan and which is the personal responsibility plan."

Gary: Give up. The 'tax' debate is a giant loser for you and conservatives. Roberts agrees. Mitt agrees. heritage agrees. Newt used to agree before flipflopping.

It's not a tax increase. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

And it gives 30-50 million Americans healthcare, eliminates price hikes when you get sick, preexisting conditions, rebates this august, etc... See the President's speech above, and compare it to the weak republican plan above.

It's great for America. Which is why Gary hates it.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 2, 2012 at 12:55 pm

>Gary hates personal responsibility.

Hardly. I buy catastrophic insurance ($50k deductible) and provide for my own health needs out of pocket, usually. Free people can decide what to purchase for their own needs...otherwise, others will tax them for them. There is no free lunch.

When the Dems/Obama start talking tort reform, then I will start to pay attention to their arguments.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 2, 2012 at 2:20 pm

Yet again, Gary and the fringe claim it's a MASSIVE tax increase but cannot specify on WHO, or HOW much, or WHY.

Because Fox has not given them the answers - because there is no tax increase on the responsible middle class.

As posted, Gary's favorite politician, Mitt Romney said that it is not a tax.

Today.

In the meantime, Americans get waht they want, in vast numbers, shown in many polls:

- "First, if you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance -- this law will only make it more secure and more affordable.

- Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive.

- They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions.

- They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick.

- They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason.

- They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms -- a provision that's already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance.

- And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care.

There's more.

- Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent's health care plans -- a provision that's already helped 6 million young Americans.

- And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs -- a discount that's already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each.

All of this is happening because of the Affordable Care Act."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 2, 2012 at 6:04 pm

>All of this is happening because of the Affordable Care Act

If I promise candy to kids, they will love me. Back in my lefty days, that was the model. The problem is the fallout...loss of individual freedom and millions of murders (the socialist model). Short of the final solution of mass murders, we get something like Greece...a stepping stone to mass murder.

Sadly, Judge Roberts has paved the way...it was an illogical decision (penalties as taxes), in order to please someone...but not sure who. Any guesses? However, we now have the tax provisions to coerce recalcitrant free individuals into the sheepdom.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 2, 2012 at 6:37 pm

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Gary is now against personal responsibility because Obama is for it, despite all the posts Gary and others have made in the past about responsibility being the conservative value (I've looked.) [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 2, 2012 at 6:59 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 2, 2012 at 7:00 pm


Roberts defined obamacare as a tax--you will also have to pay and additional tax when you sell your house to support obamacare

-$ 80,000- at least for most PA homeowners.

Most medical tests are ordered to protect the MD from litigation-not in the interests of the patient.

obamacare does nothing to curb the trial lawyers blood sucking off the medical system.

One interesting development to cut costs in medical tourism-people going to Asia and Mexico to get treatment-- that is pennies on the dollar from what they cost in the US.

Most of the MDs that run these foreign clinics and hospitals were trained in the USA.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 2, 2012 at 7:33 pm

Of course, we soon have the usual unsubstantiated falsehoods from Sharon.

One true claim of hers is about medical tourism, though mostly for elective surgery. However, she has no substantiation for the rest of her claims, such as American educated doctors running most foreign clinics, the falsehood about malpractice costs, a real estate sales tax costing PA residents 80k, etc..

For example, there is no real estate tax in the ACA; there is an investment income tax that will not effect 97% of the home sales in the US.

Again - the fringe keeps yelling about MASSIVE TAX INCREASES that just don't exist.

re: Gary's socialism - funny how a plan that uses private, for-profit insurance companies is his evidence of 'socialism'. Let's give Gary a little lesson on real socialized medicine - a system where the buildings are owned by the government and the doctors, etc.. are paid by the government.

Yo Gary - the VA is socialized medicine. The VA healthcare system for vets - overall, good thing or bad thing?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mandate tax is nothing
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 2, 2012 at 8:41 pm

omg, can't you fools look anything UP????????

The mandate tax is nothing, virtually inconsequential as a tax hike, even as part of the overall obamacare tax cost.

The total cost od obamacare pales in comparison to the amount of tax cuts Obama has signed.

Middle class tax hike? Doesn't compare, not even close to Reagns tax hike of 82, the largest tax hike ever for the middle class, when Reagan doubled the payroll taxes.

Obamacare is about the same as Clintons tax hike, which lead to a great economy and balanced budgetsj also similar size to Bush's famous Read My Lips tax hike of 1990.

You crazies need to learn how to use search. Reagans 82 tax hike on the middle class would cover TWO OBAMACARES.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 2, 2012 at 9:05 pm



the obamacare tax on home sales in PA will be enforced by the IRS- the state of CA has no control over this obamacare tax on home sales

Palo Altans will have to pay $ 800,000 to $ 5 million in obamacare tax when they sell their house

That is the reality


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 2, 2012 at 10:48 pm

"Palo Altans will have to pay $ 800,000 to $ 5 million in obamacare tax when they sell their house"

Uh-huh.

Outer space.

Again, I repeat: there is no real estate tax in the ACA; there is an investment income tax that will not effect 97% of the home sales in the US.

Or believe Sharon and Gary and Perspective about the crazy MASSIVE TAXES like "Palo Altans will have to pay $ 800,000 to $ 5 million in obamacare tax when they sell their house"

Wow.

Where do they get the crazy????

Oh, yeah.

Fox.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jul 3, 2012 at 5:10 am

Web Link

WSJ economist reports that 75% of Obamacare costs will fall on backs of those making less than $120,000/year.

Have fun with that.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 3, 2012 at 8:56 am

"WSJ economist reports that 75% of Obamacare costs will fall on backs of those making less than $120,000/year."

Wrong. Not a link to WSJ, but to a rightie site that starts: "SUCKERS! "

Wasn't an article that substantiates a claim in an interview, then Perspective misrepresents the quote.

Sad.

Pretty sure the talking head was saying those without the MORALITY to take personal responsibility to have insurance when they can obviously afford it at $120K/year (look at the 2nd sccreenshot!) 4 million is an estimate - there are other estimates that many of those 4 million will take personal responsibility in their health and our country and get insurance. Romneycare in Mass. only has 1% opting to pay a penalty rather than get the insurance that they can afford to get.

Freeloaders, freeriders supported by Gary Sharon Perspective.

Poster "mandate is nothing" could also add that the unfunded Bush Medicare Part D would have been a huge tax hike also.

Note that Gary Sharon Perspective cannot substantiate tax facts, only links to righties on Fox who lie or distort without an interviewer with the intellectual curiosity to look at the distortion.

REAGAN's 1982 tax hike on the middle class (largest ever) would cover TWO OBAMACARES in full. Reagan did that tax hike on the middle class to support tax cuts for the wealthy.

Remember - Gary Sharon Perspective are the types that post lies like this and expect that some fools will read it and believe it, because they believe the lies and distortions from Fox: "Palo Altans will have to pay $ 800,000 to $ 5 million in obamacare tax when they sell their house"

Ridiculous that she could even type that LIE.





 +   Like this comment
Posted by $5million Palo Alto tax
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 3, 2012 at 10:52 am

A tax on PA home sales of 800k to 5 million bucks?

Perhaps the most moronic lie ever by the tea bag crowd of gary perspective and sharon. Almost as stupid as Rand Paul sayint scotus doesn't decide what is constitutional.

The tea party train has run off the tracks. I guess because they just realized Romney is their candidate.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of gentile folk.

Ha!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Celts Rule
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 3, 2012 at 11:04 am

Posters Mateo, $5mill tax, mandate, etc..

Don't get caught in the weeds with all the far-right zealots and their claims, lies and distortions -- that's what they want. They want to get the discussion away from the Affordable Care act and what it provides to Americans, and onto their turf of fringe rumors and distortions of the truth.

Granted, it's hard to do with some of the more absurdly laughable claims like the $5 million tax on home sales, but no one believes that vitriol and garbage except the other Fox/Limbaugh/Beck zealots. They are talking to themselves.

Stay with the truth. Mateo did a good job of highlighting reality by posting a portion of the President's address from Thursday morning. Well worth reviewing on a regular basis -- if you doubt that sentiment, just look at the zealots and their posts; they can't address of of the factual data and benefits of the ACA, just the bull from the right-wing echo-chamber.

Stick with the truth, this is the only relevant post of the entire thread, from the President of the United States of America:

- "First, if you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance -- this law will only make it more secure and more affordable.

- Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive.

- They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions.

- They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick.

- They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason.

- They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms -- a provision that's already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance.

- And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care. ...

- Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent's health care plans -- a provision that's already helped 6 million young Americans.

- And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs -- a discount that's already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each.

All of this is happening because of the Affordable Care Act."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by stephen levy
a resident of University South
on Jul 3, 2012 at 11:30 am

stephen levy is a registered user.

Here is the math on the unearned income surcharge.

It is an additional income tax of 3.8% on unearned income applied to individuals making $200,000 or more and families making $250,000 or more.

Let's say you sell your house in Palo Alto for a $1 million capital gain. If your income is high enough the maximum additional tax on that $1 million capital gain is $38,000 or 3.8% of $1 million. But in normal cases part of the capital gain from home sales is tax free so it is likley that the additional tax would be lower.

With a 3.8% rate your capital gain would have to be $30 million for the extra tax to be $1 million.

The claim of $800,000 and higher additional taxes on home sales in PA seems a little over the top. Who exactly but some math challenged posters actually claims this?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Celts Rule
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 3, 2012 at 11:44 am

"The claim of $800,000 and higher additional taxes on home sales in PA seems a little over the top."

Mr Levy, you are indeed generous with your response -- a *little* over the top?

"Who exactly but some math challenged posters actually claims this?"

That come from SharonWorld.

A little north of WallyWorld. (Y'all remember that one, dontcha?)

Next to PerspectiveWorld and GaryWorld, which obviously is far to the right of Real World.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Celts Rule
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 3, 2012 at 11:53 am

Note that the various fringe elements claiming 'largest tax increases in the universe ever' etc.. don't take into account that Obama extended the lowest capital gains rate in memory.

But that was last year, so that's a lot to expect them to remember. Or the almost $00 billion tax cut in the stimulus, etc..

Want to hear crickets? Ask them when was the last time that the wealthiest Americans have paid lower taxes than they are under Obama. You will get no answer.

Like asking them who was the last republican to balance the federal budget.

Crickets.

Back to the ACA:

- you will keep your health insurance -- this law will only make it more secure and more affordable

- no more lifetime limits on your care

- no more discrimination against kids with preexisting conditions

- no more dropping folks when you get sick

- no longer jack up your premiums without reason

- free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms --one of the better ways to lower our national healthcare costs

- August: 13 million will receive a rebate from insurance company

- young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent's health care plans

- seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs











 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 3, 2012 at 12:25 pm

When was the lst time you heard a Dem/leftie advocate for 'loser pays' tort reform? Defensive medicine is a huge cost factor for everyone.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Celts Rule
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 3, 2012 at 12:53 pm

"When was the lst time you heard a Dem/leftie advocate for 'loser pays' tort reform? "

Gary has nothing against RomneyCare, so he's on a bandwagon of his own device. I don't even remember the Bush/Cheney White House proposing this when they had both the House and Senate. Why's that, Gary? Just Gary's noise to deflect from the ACA being rules constitutional by John Roberts, being supported my Mitt and heritage.

Notice Mitt Romney hasn't said a word since Thursday on ObamaRomneyCare? Except for his top guy saying it is not a tax.

The conservatives are livid at Mitt for backing down so fast. Far right National Journal: Web Link

Farther right Breitbart fringe: Conservatives to Mitt: Quit Now If You Won't Fight Obamatax! Web Link

Looks like the Massachusetts moderate, author of RomneyCare and the Outsourcer in Chief, is losing the base. Floor fight in Tampa? Draft a real conservative at the convention?

Third party conservative, Since Mitt is going to get clobbered in the swing states anyway? Look at any swing state poll that has at least a two month trendline. The trend has to be killing the few conservatives that have noticed (looking at anything other than Fox/Ras or the daily Gallup.)

This may end up like 2008. Too early to tell, but it's trending badly for Mitt, and this is during a time that was supposed to kill Obama's number - dog days of summer, economy bad, Europe freaking out, fast and furious, Holder, ObamaCare being defeated, etc.. If Mitt can't take a lead now, how on earth can he win?

Good job, Mr Roberts!

Tough days to be a real conservative, I bet.

Mitt's losing the election may be the only thing to save ObamaCare, after the GOP takes over the Senate along with the House. That realization must crush real conservatives. Tell me again why conservatives chose this candidate. I find it politically unfathomable, choosing a vulture capitalist outsourcer, who essentially wrote ObamaCare and can't relate to the fundamentalist Christians at their level.

Completely unfathomable.

Tough days to be a real conservative.

Why *did* Mitt get picked?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by the right way
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 3, 2012 at 1:30 pm

Romey, the author of Romney care is an abominabnation. Give me anyone but him. Herman Cain, santroum, anyone cept a Bush.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 3, 2012 at 3:07 pm

>Gary has nothing against RomneyCare, so he's on a bandwagon of his own device.

Not so! I have a lot against RomneyCare, as with ObamaCare. But I am not out on some tangent. 'Loser pays' is the beginning of a tort reform process that can LOWER COSTS of medical care in this country. There have been a number of righties who have supported the loser pay tort reform. Yet, I cannot remember any lefties who have done so, probably because they associate with greedy lawsuit attornies, and are thus part of taxing the masses of the people for unnecessary health care costs.

The future of health care will be about costs, not unlimmited access. As I said before, offer candy to kids, and they will line up to accept it from you, with smiles on their faces; bill them for it later, and they will throw a fit. The standard leftie answer is then to "tax the rich". Old story.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Celts Rule
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 3, 2012 at 3:22 pm

"Yet, I cannot remember any lefties who have done so"

Just curious, though I know it wounds Gary's "lefties are socialists murderers" meme, but where's your list of national l;evel Republicans that have passed your magic silver bullet answer to lower costs? (it doesn't, studies have show Gary's premise to not be valid.)

Where's this from? Heritage, a good conservative thinktank that never gives us socialism based solutions, except for.... oh, yeah.

ROMNEYCARE!!!!!

Tough days to be a real conservative.

No one answers the question of why they chose the flipflopping moderate, who has now gone silent on RomneyObamaCare. Gary: who is your favorite to be drafted to replace Romney, or as a third party?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 3, 2012 at 3:57 pm

> Just curious, though I know it wounds Gary's "lefties are socialists murderers" meme, but where's your list of national l;evel Republicans that have passed your magic silver bullet answer to lower costs? (it doesn't, studies have show Gary's premise to not be valid.)

You can look at Rick Perry, in Texas, for example. 'Loser pays' is only one example of how to start the conversation of LOWERING COSTS, and personal responsibility, instead of providing the candy of increased access.

BTW, I have no doubt, given the history of the 20th Century, that socialists are mass murderers, in the end. Do you?

Freedom is the future of freedom, going into the future; socialist slavery is not. Do you disagree?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 3, 2012 at 4:06 pm



Homes in our new PA neighborhood are going for around $ 11.5 Million.

3.8% tax will mean we will have to pay a additional $437,000 obamacare tax if we sell our home.

Estates in the PA Hills go for much, much more.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Celts Rule
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 3, 2012 at 4:14 pm

When asked for a national example, after pointing out Bush/Cheney and the GOP haven't implemented the silly plan, Gary gives us Texas.

Sounds like a wonderful place to live.

(hint, hint)

Or hang around in wonderfully blue California!

Who's your choice to replace Romney, the author of RomneyCare? Did you see that Romney wants to appoint more justices like John Roberts? From Mitt's website, he promises Gary "As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts"

Make sure to vote for Mitt RomneyCare, early and often!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Celts Rule
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 3, 2012 at 4:19 pm

Even After Mr Levy explained in detail the rules, the SharonGaryPerspective crowd continues to show they can't read OR do simple math!!

"Homes in our new PA neighborhood are going for around $ 11.5 Million. 3.8% tax will mean we will have to pay a additional $437,000 obamacare tax if we sell our home."

Wrong.

No. Buy it at $11 million, or even $111 million, sell it the next day and owe nothing.

There is no such thing as an "obamacare tax". There is an investment income tax, and of course, capital gains.

Note Sharon is also using $11.5 million homes as an example of a 'middle class' tax. Pathetic. Just like we're kind of lower middle class over here in A-town.

Would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 3, 2012 at 4:28 pm


Obamacare would create a vast metastatic bureaucracy that will suck in tax dollars.

The reason health care is so expensive in the US is because MDs are forced to practice hugely expensive defensive medicine out of fear of predatory trial lawyers--like the now disgraced-John Edwards-VP and then POTUS candidate-who made his fortune from ambulance chasing .

Make the loser in theses cases pay and health care costs will be cut by 30%.

We also need to digitize health care information-the current system is grossly inefficient.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Celts Rule
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 3, 2012 at 4:54 pm

Sharon has abandoned her $5 million tax on PA homes, finally. She thinks middle class folks form PA live in $11.5 million homes. Just like gary, they have been called on their silly claims and have been unable to support their falsehoods.

So they move on to tort reform, the pipe dream of the fringe crowd. Nevermind that studies show medical malpractice is less than 1.5% of the total costs, they will always claim 30% savings without any facts.

If it was so important, why didn't Bush/Cheney do something about it when they had complete control?

She can't even get the source of Edwards success correct when she calls him an ambulance chaser. He worked for plaintiffs, did libel work along with medical. His biggest case was a pool manufacturer that was killing and permanently injuring children.

"The biggest case of his legal career was a 1996 product liability lawsuit against Sta-Rite, the manufacturer of a defective pool drain cover. The case involved Valerie Lakey, a three-year-old girl who was disemboweled by the suction power of the pool drain pump when she sat on an open pool drain whose protective cover had been removed by other children at the pool, after the swim club had failed to install the cover properly. Despite 12 prior suits with similar claims, Sta-Rite continued to make and sell drain covers lacking warnings."

The company had a dozen suits, settled them all with a requirement that the injured families not share information. Just so the company could save a few dollars on labels.

Sharon/gary/perspective - admit you haven't any facts on the Affordable Care Act and go start a tort reform thread.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 3, 2012 at 5:39 pm

>Nevermind that studies show medical malpractice is less than 1.5% of the total costs...

Malpractice PAYOUTS are about that amount, but DEFENSIVE MEDICINE is another matter:

Web Link

Lefties always like to cherry pick their candy. They almost always ignore the actual costs, both economic and indiviual freedom.

Socialism is a murderous sport. Despite the candy. And leftist denial.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 3, 2012 at 6:20 pm


Gary-thanks for the link to WSJ showing that 14% of health results from malpractice insurance.

The costs of defensive medicine are huge-an additional 20 to 23%

These tests also throw up a lot of false positives--for example the AMA now advises against PSA tests for prostrate cancer--because they do more harm than good--but MDs will continues to order them to protect themselves fro predatory litigation like John Edwards practiced-before he got caught in other predatory/ sleazy behavior.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Celts Rule
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 3, 2012 at 7:21 pm

From Gary's link: "Total spending on medical malpractice, including legal-defense costs and claims payments, was $30.41 billion in 2007, according to an estimate from consulting firm Towers Perrin. That is a significant figure, but it still amounts to a little more than 1% of total U.S. health-care spending..."

As I said, about 1 1/2%. Thanks for the validation that my facts are correct and yours are not.

Did Gary or Sharon actually read the article at the link?!?!? Sharon's 14% claim is FALSE, just a single anecdote about one clinic's spending, not borne out in ANY of the studies that follow that number. For example: "In a 2008 report, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that capping malpractice awards would lead to lower insurance premiums, which could have..."

....wait for it....

".....a very modest impact on doctors' fees and health-care spending."

Yep: there's SharonGaryPerspective's entire argument: "a very modest impact on doctors' fees and health-care spending."

GarySharonPerspective not only wander off topic as their only defense, but they can't even find decent evidence for their deflection argument.

Start a tort reform thread. This is about the Affordable Care Act, President Obama, John Roberts and the author of RomneyCare, your candidate - Mitt Romney. And all the great things in the ACA - ObamaCare:

you will keep your health insurance -- this law will only make it more secure and more affordable

- no more lifetime limits on your care

- no more discrimination against kids with preexisting conditions

- no more dropping folks when you get sick

- no longer jack up your premiums without reason

- free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms --one of the better ways to lower our national healthcare costs

- August: 13 million will receive a rebate from insurance company

- young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent's health care plans

- seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs


 +   Like this comment
Posted by rebateshow muc
a resident of Menlo Park
on Jul 3, 2012 at 8:02 pm

how much in rebates?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Celts Rule
a resident of Atherton
on Jul 3, 2012 at 8:54 pm

How much? Over a billion, maybe two. Numbers aren't out yet. Insurers are now required to spend a minimum percentage of their revenue on actual healthcare.

Shocked, I know...

If your employer buys the insurance, the rebates will go to them and they will apply as they see fit, I believe. I have to check on that.

Estimated that over 4 million individuals will be eligible for rebates (not company plans.)


 +   Like this comment
Posted by disninformation campaign
a resident of Woodside
on Jul 4, 2012 at 10:15 am

Too many low information voters in America. A couple low information posters, as well.

from the NYTimes Web Link

"Nearly two dozen Pennsylvania residents, interviewed recently by Abby Goodnough of The Times, said they were opposed to President Obama's health care reform law. Though almost all of them would benefit from it, they expressed fears about a loss of control over their health care **that is nowhere in the law.**

There are two reasons for this situation, which is repeated around the country. Business groups allied with Republicans have spent $235 million on television ads attacking the law with **false accusations,** with the vigorous aid of Mitt Romney and his campaign."

An interesting read, especially from the political angle, though one must keep in mind that much of America doesn't give a hoot, as evidenced by the two poll since Thursday's Roberts Court decision. Applicable here? This:

"Republicans are happy to continue it with obvious propaganda like "Obamacare is the largest tax increase in U.S. history."" Nice job by the poster above who pointed out the obvious fabrication, with the fact that one of Reagan's middle class tax hikes alone would pay for two complete ObamaCares.

Good stuff by some 'high information' posters.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jul 5, 2012 at 10:13 am

Web Link

I bet you all can't wait to see what the 13,000 new pages of regulations are on health care, can you? Happy Regulating!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 5, 2012 at 10:29 am

Perspectives sources, when you follow the links, is a republican congressman from Montana, who did not substantiate his claim.

Normally, I'd give an elected official the benefit of a doubt, even with the lies that republicans have spread about the ACA for years (death panels, largest middle class tax hike etc..)

But this guy, Danny Rehberg is a real head case - homophobe, a number of statements against Native Americans, latinos, gays, etc.. that are disgusting. Taunting gays in an airplane with his Idaho Travel Package. A bully. Anyone really want to bring bullying discussions back into the race Romney is participating in?

This is perspectives' source, straight from fox news - fact free news.

Rehberg: "The problem with AIDS is you get it, you die, so why are we spending [money on] any people that get it?"

Lying with some strange bedfellows there... do so-called conservatives ever google their so called "facts" before they present them directly from fox?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jul 5, 2012 at 12:02 pm

Right, Mateo. Can't refute it based on facts, so resort to unsubstantiated name calling? I will grant you there are no references to the statement, this is true. Therefore I agree with you. I missed that part. But to then call him vile and disgusting for "homophobia" and a number of anti this and that comments without any references? Give me a break.

What is absolutely certain, and well documented, is the fact that HHS is free to write any regulations they wish in the implementation of this 2,700 page monstrosity. Let's see...a 2,700 page bill, each page with any number of "law" written into it, repeatedly at the "discretion of the HHS Director"..well..connect the dots.

Again, I say, have fun with all the regulations yet to come, whether it is 3,000 pages or 13,000 pages.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 5, 2012 at 12:26 pm

"Can't refute it based on facts, so resort to unsubstantiated name calling?"

Where are the facts? All you presented was a fox report that quoted the fool in Montana.

You want facts on the Montana homophobe? Google:
- "The problem with AIDS is you get it, you die, so why are we spending [money on] any people that get it?"

- Idaho Travel Package - it's about Sen Larry Craig (R) and his public bathroom adventures and your guy Rehberg

That's a start - want more on your 'expert' source?

Pretty sad, how you throw out a rather moronic fox related link, have it destroyed by simple google searches and then demand that someone prove a negative about your falsehood.

Perspective's only truth? "...I will grant you there are no references to the statement..."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 5, 2012 at 12:29 pm

Meanwhile, the President's statement today:

"I will work with anybody who wants to work with me to continue to improve our health care system and our health care laws, but the law I passed is here to stay. ...

We will not go back to the days when insurance companies could descriminate against people just because they were sick. We're not going to tell six million young people who are now on their parents health insurance plans that suddenly they don't have health insurance. We're not going to allow Medicare to be turned into a voucher system.

Now is not the time to spend four more years refighting battles we fought two years ago. Now is the time to move forward and make sure that every American has affordable health insurance and that insurance companies are treating them fairly. That's what we fought for, that's what we're going to keep. We are moving forward."

Thank you, Mr President.

Americans have a choice - the GOP and Romney that want the Ryan plan that gives more tax breaks to Romney and millionaires and billionaires while ending Medicare as we know it, or the President who is looking to cover the 50 million Americans without insurance, lowering healthcare costs for the country.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by flippity flop
a resident of Stanford
on Jul 6, 2012 at 11:30 am

How many times has Williard Romney flip flopped on Romneycare being a tax or a penalty?

Obama talks about the positives while mittens spins. When is mittens going to tell us what he is for, instead of against?

Well, like every politician, he is for America. Puppies too. He even boldly proclaimed he loves God, baseball and Apple Pie.

Bold mitt. He may come out in favor of motherhood, as soon as the latest polls are in.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 6, 2012 at 1:30 pm

Any doubt about political 'winners' in the SCOTUS decision is gone. IF Romney discusses it on any given day (mostly not) it is to clarify one of his flip flops on Ramneycare and the freeloader penalty.

Yet EVERY day, the President addresses it.

Today, the winner said:

- President Obama: "The fact that a whole bunch of Republicans in Washington suddenly said, this is a tax -- for six years he said it wasn't, and now he has suddenly reversed himself. So the question becomes, are you doing that because of politics? "

Obama continues: "Are you abandoning a principle that you fought for, for six years simply because you're getting pressure for two days from Rush Limbaugh or some critics in Washington?"

Too bad that Romney doesn't have a single positive issue upon which to campaign. That makes for a tough slog through the dog days heading into the convention.

Odd that no one has answered this simple question - Why did they pick this guy?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by not tax, but a middle class tax break
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 8, 2012 at 11:21 am

Calling it a tax on the middle class is farcical.

Far more middle class taxpayers will get tax breaks or subsidies than the few who will pay a penalty for not having insurance.

The extremists have an alternate reality. Called foxworld.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 10, 2012 at 10:47 am

The House votes today for the 31st time to repeal ObamaRomneyCare. What's that old definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over again and never working on jobs and the economy? Something like that.

Maybe the House GOP just wants to feather their nest a little more:

"Repealing President Obama's healthcare law would let members of Congress keep their government-subsidized insurance coverage after they retire — a benefit they lost under the health law.

The Affordable Care Act... kicked members of Congress and their aides out of the healthcare program for federal employees.

Instead, lawmakers and staff have to get coverage through the insurance exchanges created by the healthcare law. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), who championed that provision, said it ensures that lawmakers live under the same rules as their constituents.

Now, as the House prepares to vote on a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, some Democrats are arguing that repeal would reinstate a two-tiered system that gives lawmakers a leg up."

It's a two-fer.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jul 13, 2012 at 6:09 am

Nothing like having a do-nothing Majority Senate, is there?

Wait till January, 2013. The obstructionist Dems will be gone. 244-185 ( 5 Dems, probably up for re-election, voted to repeal also).

Oh ..Gosh!! The House vote to PASS Obamacare was 219-212, with 34 Democrats joining Republicans in opposition! Gee!! Somehow THAT is "Democracy" in action, but now is not! Hmmmm!!Even LESS "popular" now! Wow..hmm..


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mateo
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 13, 2012 at 10:15 am

The majority in the Senate passed the Affordable Care Act.

Not sure what your babble about house votes is about, the House GOP wasted 31 separate votes on repeal, costing taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 million and weeks of time better spent on a jobs bill.

Seems to me the most recent, relevant vote on the ACA was won by a single vote.

Some guy named John Roberts.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rebates
a resident of Barron Park School
on Jul 19, 2012 at 5:34 pm

Friend got a check for over $400 from her insurance company. Guess they overcharged or didn't spend enough on medical coverage.

Cool.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by seventy dollar rebate
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 21, 2012 at 11:57 am

$400 is a big rebate, mine was 70.

Did Sharon ever explain her tax claim of 5 million per house in PA?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by company plan
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 22, 2012 at 8:28 am

Our rebates if any went to my company since its their plan.

I favor Obamacare, was the right thing to do


 +   Like this comment
Posted by stephen levy
a resident of University South
on Jul 22, 2012 at 1:01 pm

stephen levy is a registered user.

My wife's rebate was $90 but it was the second rebate she has received this year so far. I too support the new health care law.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by where are the JOBS
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 26, 2012 at 11:08 am

127 GOP "lawmakers" threaten to shut down government to stop funding ObamaCare.

Web Link

I thought they said in 2010 they were going to create jobs.

What a bunch of jerks.

34 repeal votes on the ACA.

Dozens of abortion votes.

ZERO JOBS BILLS.

Worst congress ever.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jul 29, 2012 at 5:56 am

Web Link

Fewer doctors ( and other health care providers) as a result of Obamacare? Who knew? Certainly we never heard this, did we? LOL


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jul 29, 2012 at 5:58 am

Lost count of how many "jobs bills" were brought to Reid's desk in the Senate from the House and placed in the circular file. Are we up to 31 yet? The power still rests completely with the Dems.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by jobs jobs jobs
a resident of Greater Miranda
on Jul 29, 2012 at 11:10 am

What jobs bills came from the ghouse to the senate?

A tax cut for corporations is not a jobs bill. Allowing my grandkids to breathe more mercury is not a jobs bill.

Please list the John Boehner jobs bills that he promised.

John Boehner promised jobs - all we got were abortion votes and useless ACA repeal votes.

The American jobs bill is a set of formerly Republican endorsed ideas; it has majority support in the Senate, 50-49.

Now the Republicans in the House won't vote on it - cutting off America's nose to spite our face, just so they can sabotage the economy to win an elections.

Treason.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by no jobs
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jul 30, 2012 at 11:15 am

there will be no jobs bills until the lame duck session.

if Romney wins, the Republicans will move immediately to stimulate the economy much the way Reagan and Bush did through spending. Why? Romney will want immediate growth and jobs to set a narrative early, to get relelected in 2016.

if Obama wins, the republicans will be in disarray, but a number of the moderates, mostly interested in corporate preferences, will argue that the Republicans can't block action any more without being blamed by the public. They will cross the aisle and move jobs programs forward. Probably in exchange for spending in their districts.

Sad, and an admission that the GOP has been blocking economic progress for 3.5 years, but a reality. Americans are starting to notice.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Obamacare
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Jul 31, 2012 at 11:24 am

This thread used to be about ObamaCare, not the Congress's non-existent attempt to revive the economy before the election.

from the Chronicle this morning:

"Lucia Harkenreader's check landed in her mailbox last week: a rebate of $456.15 from her health insurance company, with a letter dryly explaining that the money came courtesy of the federal health care law.

...

The law requires insurers to give out annual rebates by Aug. 1, starting this year, if less than 80 percent of the premium dollars they collect go toward medical care. For insurers covering large employers, the threshold is 85 percent. This year's rebates are based on the share of premiums that went to administrative costs in 2011.

As a result, insurers will pay out $1.1 billion this year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, with an average rebate of $151 per household."

And: 12.8 million Americans will see a rebate this year

Very cool. About time someone horsecollared those bloodsucking insurance companies.

Notice that Romney's trip was to watch a country brag about their beloved healthcare system for 11 minutes in primetime at the Olympics opening ceremony? And then he went to Israel and raved about their universal healthcare?

He's the strangest candidate ever. The man wrote Obamacare. It's legal. It's working. Yet Romney runs away from it to other countries and praises their socialized medicine!

A strange fellow.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by That User Name is already
a resident of another community
on Aug 10, 2012 at 10:26 am

That User Name is already is a registered user.

Mitt Romney, the author of Romneycare, is the Republican nominee for president, running against Obamacare as his #1 issue.

Sit, for a moment and ponder that scene.

Yes, it makes sense now, doesn't it? Once that sinks in, one can better understand the dilema and angst of conservatives that may, or may not bother to, vore this November.

It's the 5 stages of republican grief. Which stage is each of our favorite tea party posters of PA Online in? You decide.

----------
Web Link includes bonus pictures of Ann Coulter for the tea partiers

"Conservatives want Romney to lead the way in convincing the rest of America that President Obama is genuinely a malevolent force. They want Obamacare to be cited as Exhibit A of that evil plot. But Romney can't do that, because he established Romneycare in Massachusetts. But conservatives are not yet ready to accept that their candidate is not a torch-bearer for their principles. And so, from time to time they tend to explode. But not all of these explosions are the same.

We've noticed that they tend to fall along the five stages of grief in realizing they're stuck with the presidential candidate they'd got."

-----------

The 5 stages are Denial Anger Bargaining Depression Acceptance

Which one are you in, oh favorite posters?


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Local picks on 2015 Michelin Bib Gourmand list
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 3,109 views

WUE makes out-of-state tuition more affordable
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 2 comments | 2,823 views

Ode to Brussels Sprout
By Laura Stec | 18 comments | 2,420 views

Go Giants! Next Stop: World Series!
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,823 views

A Surprise!
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 1,019 views