ECONOMIST: 75% of Obamacare costs to fall on Americans making less than $120,000

[jimnyc]

Yeah, sure, and we have some wanting us to believe this is going to save us money.

WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making Less Than $120K a Year<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ixRRuzmxzTg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb_c10062720120702120100.jpg

[fj1200]

Yeah, sure, and we have some wanting us to believe this is going to save us money.

WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making Less Than $120K a Year

Well, they are receiving 100% of the benefits.

[red states rule]

Well, they are receiving 100% of the benefits.

What benefits?

Longer waits for treatment

Higher costs for the care

Rationed Care

Fewer Doctors to provide care

More government paperwork

Employers hiring fewer workers

And this is only the beginning of the "benefits"

[fj1200]

^It was a joke wrapped up in an enigma surrounded by snark. :chortle: :chortle:

[red states rule]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IS0UtksAtos/TwvBSW2SwuI/AAAAAAAAVJ0/RNXbS9qrItU/s1600/obama.jpg

[aboutime]

Yeah, sure, and we have some wanting us to believe this is going to save us money.

WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making Less Than $120K a Year

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ixRRuzmxzTg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
Obama is such a good, practiced, rehearsed, consistent, determined, perfect Liar. Even HE is convinced everyone is lying.
It's just more of the same Obama character, shining through.
He practices, and has become expert, not to mention perfect at LYING.
He will go down in History as the Proudest Liar to ever pretend to be president.
His legacy is written in stone.
His headstone will read.
"Here Lies, the Liar, who Lied, and Lied until he Died"

[grannyhawkins]

I was trying to quote Red's cartoon above, but it wouldn't let me, as I guess I'm too new around here. Take a look at the cartoon an the moozlum taxin lemonade.

Now thar it is in a nutshell!!! Do y'all really think that we're all gonna pay the same price for our insurance??? Not on your life!!! This is just the beginning of legislating or should I say, taxing behavior. Are you a smoker?? That'll be $30.00 extra every month. Overweight, that'll be $25.00 extra a month. Are you a Gun owner??? That'll be $50.00 extra a month. Are you a Gay or Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transgendered??? Well, it's your lucky day, your the Hollywood Flavor of the month, your gonna save $15.00 a month.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IS0UtksAtos/TwvBSW2SwuI/AAAAAAAAVJ0/RNXbS9qrItU/s1600/obama.jpg

They already did and the kids had to learn early...

TAX them if they buy lemonade, TAX if they don't buy lemonade. Its all good folks.
Jesus bless me this I know because Roberts tells me so!
TAX Jesus too! Roberts says thats legal too!
Its all good, a lib/dem/leftist paradise and we can all thank two traitors for it, obama and Roberts.
Some Americans just love double penetrations!- :laugh:--Tyr

[grannyhawkins]

I'm not smart enough to make out Roberts quite yet. Did he do us a favor, or unlock pandora's box???

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I was trying to quote Red's cartoon above, but it wouldn't let me, as I guess I'm too new around here. Take a look at the cartoon an the moozlum taxin lemonade.

Now thar it is in a nutshell!!! Do y'all really think that we're all gonna pay the same price for our insurance??? Not on your life!!! This is just the beginning of legislating or should I say, taxing behavior. Are you a smoker?? That'll be $30.00 extra every month. Overweight, that'll be $25.00 extra a month. Are you a Gun owner??? That'll be $50.00 extra a month. Are you a Gay or Lesbian, Bisexual, or Transgendered??? Well, it's your lucky day, your the Hollywood Flavor of the month, your gonna save $15.00 a month.

CONSIDER THIS MY FRIEND. IT POINTS TO THE PANDORA'S BOX ROBERTS JUST OPENED!-TYR

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/29/roberts-unleashes-vast-federal-power/

-EditionRSSNAPOLITANO: Roberts unleashes vast federal power
Basis for high court ruling not found in the Constitution
Comments (265)ShareTweetEmailPrintShare on google_plusoneMOREText Size: + / - By Andrew P. Napolitano

Friday, June 29, 2012


If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,

If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.

If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,

If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.

-The Beatles in “The Taxman”

Among the 17 lawyers who have served as chief jus- tice of the United States, John Marshall - the fourth chief justice - has come to be known as the “great” chief justice. The folks who have given him that title are the progressives who largely have written the history we have all been taught in government schools. They revere him because he is the intellectual progenitor of federal power. His opinions over a 34-year period during the nation’s infancy - expanding federal power at the expense of personal freedom and the sovereignty of the states - set a pattern for federal control of our lives and actually invited Congress to regulate areas of human behavior nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. He was Thomas Jefferson’s cousin, but they rarely spoke. No chief justice in history has so pronouncedly and creatively offered the feds power on a platter as much as he.

Now he has a rival.

No one can know the true motivations for the idiosyncratic rationale in the health care decision written by John Marshall’s current successor, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. Often, five-member majorities on the court are fragile, and bizarre compromises are necessary to keep a five-member majority from becoming a four-member minority. Perhaps the Chief really means what he wrote - that congressional power to tax is without constitutional limit - and his opinion is a faithful reflection of that view, without a political, legal or intracourt agenda. But that view finds no support in the Constitution or our history. It even contradicts the most famous of John Marshall’s big-government aphorisms: The power to tax is the power to destroy.

The reasoning underlying the 5 to 4 majority opinion is the court’s unprecedented pronouncement that Congress‘ power to tax is unlimited. The majority held that the extraction of thousands of dollars per year by the Internal Revenue Service from individuals who do not have health insurance is not a fine, not a punishment, not a payment for government-provided health insurance, not a shared responsibility - all of which the statute says it is - but rather is an inducement in the form of a tax. The majority likened this tax to the federal taxes on tobacco or gasoline, which, it held, are imposed not only to generate revenue but also to discourage smoking and driving. The statute is more than 2,700 pages in length; it establishes the federal micromanagement of about 16 percent of the national economy, and the court justified it constitutionally by calling it a tax.

A 7 to 2 majority (which excluded two of the progressive justices who joined the chief justice in rewriting tax law and included the four dissenting justices who would have invalidated the entire statute as beyond the constitutional power of Congress) held that while Congress can regulate commerce, it cannot compel one to engage in commerce. The same majority ruled that Congress cannot force the states to expand Medicaid by establishing state insurance exchanges. It held that the congressional command to establish the exchanges combined with the congressional threat to withhold all Medicaid funds - not just those involved with the exchanges - for failure to establish them would be so harmful to the financial stability of state governments as to be tantamount to an assault on state sovereignty. This leaves the exchanges in limbo, and it is the first judicial recognition that state sovereignty apparently is at the tender mercies of the financial largesse of Congress.

The logic in the majority opinion is the jurisprudential equivalent of passing a camel through the eye of a needle. The logic is so tortured, unexpected and unprecedented that even the law’s most fervent supporters did not make or anticipate the court’s argument in its support. Under the Constitution, a tax must originate in the House, which this law did not, and it must be applied for doing something, like earning income or purchasing tobacco or fuel, not for doing nothing. In all the history of the court, it has never held that a penalty imposed for violating a federal law was really a tax. And it has never linguistically converted the congressional finding of penalty into the judicial declaration of tax, absent finding subterfuge on the part of congressional draftsmanship.

I wonder if the chief justice realized what he and the progressive wing of the court were doing to our freedom. If the feds can tax us for not doing as they have commanded, and if that which is commanded need not be grounded in the Constitution, then there is no constitutional limit to their power, and the ruling that the power to regulate commerce does not encompass the power to compel commerce is mere sophistry.

Even the Beatles understood this.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. He is the author of “It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom” (Thomas Nelson, 2011).

[red state]

Granny,

Robert definitely opened a very nasty box and inside ain't chocolate! I've heard rumors that Roberts is brilliant and did this to destroy Obama's chance in Nov. I disagree. I think he's nothing but an idiot (appointed by an idiot).

To understand what has happened, you must first ask: How many Supreme Court decisions have been overturned or reversed. We've had so-called conservative leadership with enough votes to overturn Roe VS Wade but that law, tax or whatever you want to call that ant-State judgement by our not-so supreme court has stood for YEARS and it ain't going anywhere apparently. So many lives lost. Sad.

Anyway, We've known this for quite some time....only the liberals have yet to believe. Now let's label all the accomplishments that Obama promised: closed GITMO, believes marriage is between one man and one woman and, to keep this reply short and back on topic, WOULDN'T RAISE OUR TAXES ONE SINGLE DIME....especially in such a bad economy (which is now MUCH, Much, much worse after he's turned everything he's touched into $#!T.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c10062820120703120100.jpg

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c10062820120703120100.jpg

Great post, pic worth ten thousand words or MORE! However trust me on this, obama's name would be first on that car dealership not Roberts. No way would that egotistical maniac allow Roberts first billing ahead of his majesty!;)--Tyr

[ConHog]

Granny,

Robert definitely opened a very nasty box and inside ain't chocolate! I've heard rumors that Roberts is brilliant and did this to destroy Obama's chance in Nov. I disagree. I think he's nothing but an idiot (appointed by an idiot).

To understand what has happened, you must first ask: How many Supreme Court decisions have been overturned or reversed. We've had so-called conservative leadership with enough votes to overturn Roe VS Wade but that law, tax or whatever you want to call that ant-State judgement by our not-so supreme court has stood for YEARS and it ain't going anywhere apparently. So many lives lost. Sad.

Anyway, We've known this for quite some time....only the liberals have yet to believe. Now let's label all the accomplishments that Obama promised: closed GITMO, believes marriage is between one man and one woman and, to keep this reply short and back on topic, WOULDN'T RAISE OUR TAXES ONE SINGLE DIME....especially in such a bad economy (which is now MUCH, Much, much worse after he's turned everything he's touched into $#!T.

Barring a constitutional amendment to the contrary there is no over turning a SCOTUS ruling when it comes to question of Constitutionality, they ARE the supreme arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional.

[red states rule]

Barring a constitutional amendment to the contrary there is no over turning a SCOTUS ruling when it comes to question of Constitutionality, they ARE the supreme arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional.

and it can be repealed and thanks to the Chief Middle of the Roader calling it a tax - Obamacare can be repealed in the US Senate by a simple majority vote.

Dems lose the Senate they cannot stop it

Also, since the Cheif Middle of the Roader called Obamaacre a tax bill - he should have struck it down sicne Obamacre was first passed in the US Senate and not in the House as the Constituion dictates

But what does a middle of the roader care about such a mere detail as what the US Constituion states? After al, we all need to get along and that emotion was what made his decison for him - not the US Constitution

[grannyhawkins]

and it can be repealed and thanks to the Chief Middle of the Roader calling it a tax - Obamacare can be repealed in the US Senate by a simple majority vote.

Dems lose the Senate they cannot stop it

Also, since the Cheif Middle of the Roader called Obamaacre a tax bill - he should have struck it down sicne Obamacre was first passed in the US Senate and not in the House as the Constituion dictates

But what does a middle of the roader care about such a mere detail as what the US Constituion states? After al, we all need to get along and that emotion was what made his decison for him - not the US Constitution

This is the part of the argument, that has me stumped on Roberts position/desicion.

[red states rule]

This is the part of the argument, that has me stumped on Roberts position/desicion.

I would like to know how any USSC Justice could uphold this tax bill when it was not first passed by the House as the US Constitution stipulates

[aboutime]

I would like to know how any USSC Justice could uphold this tax bill when it was not first passed by the House as the US Constitution stipulates

We have been talking about this endlessly since the Roberts ruling. And all of us believe, we have the right answers, or reasons that Roberts did what he did.

I fall on the side of Hoping, Roberts had an Ulterior, Unseen Motive his Judicial mind put out there for all of us to decipher and discuss. And I do believe. You...red states rule...have hit on a very valid point I HOPE Roberts may have had in mind as well.
If the design of the Founding Fathers, and the Division of the Three...Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches are to remain separate. Then Roberts may be SILENTLY telling Congress that the Ball...so to speak...Must be in their Court. Or the ruling of Constitutionality handed down, has not been fully vetted..as OBAMA, and the Dems are now demanding it has.

Sadly. The American people, as of yesterday. ARE NOT AWARE, in many cases. That Roberts, and the SCOTUS even handed down a ruling.
Which tells those of us here on a Political Forum. Americans in General. ARE still terribly uninformed, and really have NO IDEA what is taking place around them...Unless it has anything to do with PUTTING DOLLARS in their Pockets.

[red states rule]

Mennwhile the IRS is hiring thousands of new agents to collect the tax - that many deny is a tax

And if you fail to pay the tax - that is not "really" a tax - you could end up in jail

So if it is not a tax why the hell is the IRS getting involved?