PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues "ObamaCare:" Saved by Disdain for a "Tax"


Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 09:15 AM
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=middle align=left>Best analysis I've seen so far on how the "unlikely" decision came down. Opponents out-smarted themsleves....heh. Comedy gold.

And for the Robert's-haters of the day--it's important to note, he actually reaffirmed a very conservative and narrow interpretation of the Fed's powers relative to the commerce clause. You can at least take solace in that. Unfortunately, for you folks....you didn't keep your eye on the real ball: that only semantics kept this whole thing from being called precisely what it was: a "tax." Something, clearly, constitutional.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/opinion/balkin-health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Tax power: The little argument that could
CNN.com
By Jack M. Balkin , Special to CNN
updated 10:21 AM EDT, Sat June 30, 2012

</TD><TD vAlign=bottom align=right>






</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Editor's note: Jack M. Balkin is Knight professor of Constitutional Law at Yale Law School. He is the author, most recently, of "Living Originalism" (Harvard University Press).

(CNN) -- Throughout the two-year litigation over the Affordable Care Act, there was one argument that health care reform's opponents dreaded the most. It was the argument that the so-called individual mandate was not a mandate at all, but a tax. That is the argument that the Supreme Court accepted Thursday in upholding President Obama's health care bill, which can now justly be called "Obamacare" by both its friends and foes.

Here was the problem. If the Affordable Care Act imposed a mandate, it was ordering people to buy insurance, and nobody likes to be told what to do by the government. But if it was a tax, then it actually gave people a choice: Pay a small tax, or buy health insurance. And if you actually read the bill, that's exactly what the law said. The mandate was directed at "taxpayer[s]". Every taxpayer not otherwise exempted had to indicate on their tax return if they had health insurance, and if they didn't, they had to pay a small penalty.

In fact, Congress made things even easier. The only consequence for failing to pay the tax was that your income tax refund would be reduced by a bit. And if you didn't have a tax refund that year, there were no consequences at all!

Congress provided that failure to pay the tax would not result in either criminal penalties or tax liens. Nobody would come after you if you didn't pay the tax. Congress planned to rely primarily on the fact that most Americans understand and accept that they have to pay their taxes.


Moreover, if the mandate was a tax, as the court opinion suggested it was, then its constitutionality was pretty clear. The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax and provide for the general welfare, so the only question was whether Congress could reasonably conclude that taxing people if they didn't buy health insurance promoted the general welfare.

The answer to that question was also pretty clear. Congress wanted to give all Americans a new set of consumer protection rules that prevented insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and imposing lifetime caps on coverage. The only way to make those reforms work, Congress thought, was to get more people in the national risk pool. Hence, Congress decided to give uninsured people a nudge instead of a direct order: It taxed them if they didn't buy insurance. It was a bit like taxing people who didn't install anti-pollution equipment.

Because the taxing power argument was so simple, the opponents of the mandate wanted to avoid framing the debate around that issue at all costs. They wanted to fight only over the question of whether the mandate was permissible under Congress' powers to regulate interstate commerce. If you didn't have insurance, opponents argued, you weren't doing anything, so there was no commerce to regulate.

You have to hand it to the mandate opponents and the Republican Party that supported them. They transformed a law that at worst would reduce your tax refund a bit into the greatest threat to human liberty since the founding of the Republic.

They raised the specter of government-mandated purchases of broccoli. And whenever the taxing power argument was raised -- as it was raised by many constitutional scholars like myself -- opponents tried to change the subject or dismissed it out of hand. One opponent of the mandate told me confidently that for the Justice Department even to raise the tax power argument in court would be professional malpractice.

Ironically, the opponents' biggest allies in this strategy were the Democrats in Congress and President Obama. Back in 2009, before the debt ceiling crisis, the very idea that the country might have to raise taxes to solve the nation's problems was thought to be political poison. Grover Norquist was at the height of his powers. Obama had promised not to raise taxes on the middle class during his 2008 campaign, and he didn't want anyone to accuse him of breaking that promise, even though he just had. Senate Democrats cravenly called the tax a "penalty," even though it actually operated as a tax. When pressed by George Stephanopolous in a November 2009 interview on ABC News, Obama refused to admit that the mandate was a tax, even after Stephanopolous informed Obama that he had actually read the bill and that it looked like a tax to him.

The Justice Department, however, argued that the mandate was a tax from the outset. They knew that what politicians said made no difference to the actual constitutional issues. They were professionals, and they wanted to advance every argument that had a chance to win. They fully expected that the case would be decided on the Commerce Clause, because that's what Congress and the president had emphasized, and they thought there was plenty of law to support them. But a few Justice Department officials asked me, Andrew Pincus at Mayer Brown, and Gillian Metzger and Trevor Morrison of Columbia Law School to write an amicus brief on the tax issues to bolster the argument, just in case it was necessary.

We kept submitting different versions of the tax power brief throughout the litigation, in the district courts, in the circuit courts and eventually in the Supreme Court, where we were joined by several other law professors. During this entire time, the debate was structured on terms set by the mandate's opponents. All attention was focused on the Commerce Clause. Over the course of three years -- even before the law was enacted -- I did countless debates and interviews about the mandate, each time emphasizing that this was an easy case under the power to tax. It was no use. Opponents had taken over the terms of debate. The only thing people wanted to talk about was broccoli.

When the case reached the Supreme Court in March, Justice Antonin Scalia played the broccoli card once again. He gleefully noted that Obama himself had said the mandate wasn't a tax. Chief Justice John Roberts wasn't so sure. On the first day of oral argument, he noted that the mandate looked like a tax to him.

Liberals were dispirited by the oral arguments before the court. People piled on Solicitor General Donald Verrilli for taking a sip of water and coughing at the beginning of his presentation. What they didn't know is that Verrilli had quietly beefed up the tax power arguments in his final brief before the Supreme Court.

A few days ago, Intrade thought there was a 71% chance that the mandate would go down. That shows how cleverly and effectively opponents of the mandate had shifted the terms of public debate. But they did so only by hiding the ball and downplaying the most obvious argument for the Affordable Care Act's constitutionality.

When push came to shove, Roberts was unwilling to strike the Affordable Care Act down if there was a perfectly good argument for upholding it. And there was: the tax power argument. Roberts explained that, like the other conservatives, he didn't buy the Commerce Clause theory. Yet when he read the language of the statute, he understood that it could easily be read as a tax. And as a tax, the case for its constitutionality was an easy one. And so he upheld it.

The health care case did make important new law, but not in the area of the individual mandate. The court held that Congress could give states a choice of whether to accept new Medicaid funding but that Congress couldn't threaten to eliminate all funding under the existing version of Medicaid if states refused the deal. Congress could offer those terms if it had made only minor changes to the program, but the new Medicaid program -- extending health care to everyone under 133% of the poverty line -- was sufficiently different in kind from the old program that the states did not have fair warning.

The opponents of the mandate moved a fringe position about the Constitution from off-the-wall to on-the-wall. They successfully shaped the terms of the public debate over the Affordable Care Act. But as Abraham Lincoln once said, you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. In the end, the mandate's opponents couldn't fool all of the justices who had actually read the statute. They upheld the Constitution, and the law.

CoMoChief
06-30-2012, 09:47 AM
In fact, Congress made things even easier. The only consequence for failing to pay the tax was that your income tax refund would be reduced by a bit. And if you didn't have a tax refund that year, there were no consequences at all!

Congress provided that failure to pay the tax would not result in either criminal penalties or tax liens. Nobody would come after you if you didn't pay the tax.

This is a giant lie.

stonedstooge
06-30-2012, 09:52 AM
So does it now become the Affordable Care Tax?

Iz Zat Chew
06-30-2012, 09:52 AM
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=middle align=left>Best analysis I've seen so far on how the "unlikely" decision came down. Opponents out-smarted themsleves....heh. Comedy gold.

And for the Robert's-haters of the day--it's important to note, he actually reaffirmed a very conservative and narrow interpretation of the Fed's powers relative to the commerce clause. You can at least take solace in that. Unfortunately, for you folks....you didn't keep your eye on the real ball: that only semantics kept this whole thing from being called precisely what it was: a "tax." Something, clearly, constitutional.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/opinion/balkin-health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

Tax power: The little argument that could
CNN.com
By Jack M. Balkin , Special to CNN
updated 10:21 AM EDT, Sat June 30, 2012



</TD><TD vAlign=bottom align=right>








</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Editor's note: Jack M. Balkin is Knight professor of Constitutional Law at Yale Law School. He is the author, most recently, of "Living Originalism" (Harvard University Press).

(CNN) -- Throughout the two-year litigation over the Affordable Care Act, there was one argument that health care reform's opponents dreaded the most. It was the argument that the so-called individual mandate was not a mandate at all, but a tax. That is the argument that the Supreme Court accepted Thursday in upholding President Obama's health care bill, which can now justly be called "Obamacare" by both its friends and foes.

Here was the problem. If the Affordable Care Act imposed a mandate, it was ordering people to buy insurance, and nobody likes to be told what to do by the government. But if it was a tax, then it actually gave people a choice: Pay a small tax, or buy health insurance. And if you actually read the bill, that's exactly what the law said. The mandate was directed at "taxpayer[s]". Every taxpayer not otherwise exempted had to indicate on their tax return if they had health insurance, and if they didn't, they had to pay a small penalty.

In fact, Congress made things even easier. The only consequence for failing to pay the tax was that your income tax refund would be reduced by a bit. And if you didn't have a tax refund that year, there were no consequences at all!

Congress provided that failure to pay the tax would not result in either criminal penalties or tax liens. Nobody would come after you if you didn't pay the tax. Congress planned to rely primarily on the fact that most Americans understand and accept that they have to pay their taxes.


Moreover, if the mandate was a tax, as the court opinion suggested it was, then its constitutionality was pretty clear. The Constitution gives Congress the power to tax and provide for the general welfare, so the only question was whether Congress could reasonably conclude that taxing people if they didn't buy health insurance promoted the general welfare.

The answer to that question was also pretty clear. Congress wanted to give all Americans a new set of consumer protection rules that prevented insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and imposing lifetime caps on coverage. The only way to make those reforms work, Congress thought, was to get more people in the national risk pool. Hence, Congress decided to give uninsured people a nudge instead of a direct order: It taxed them if they didn't buy insurance. It was a bit like taxing people who didn't install anti-pollution equipment.

Because the taxing power argument was so simple, the opponents of the mandate wanted to avoid framing the debate around that issue at all costs. They wanted to fight only over the question of whether the mandate was permissible under Congress' powers to regulate interstate commerce. If you didn't have insurance, opponents argued, you weren't doing anything, so there was no commerce to regulate.

You have to hand it to the mandate opponents and the Republican Party that supported them. They transformed a law that at worst would reduce your tax refund a bit into the greatest threat to human liberty since the founding of the Republic.

They raised the specter of government-mandated purchases of broccoli. And whenever the taxing power argument was raised -- as it was raised by many constitutional scholars like myself -- opponents tried to change the subject or dismissed it out of hand. One opponent of the mandate told me confidently that for the Justice Department even to raise the tax power argument in court would be professional malpractice.

Ironically, the opponents' biggest allies in this strategy were the Democrats in Congress and President Obama. Back in 2009, before the debt ceiling crisis, the very idea that the country might have to raise taxes to solve the nation's problems was thought to be political poison. Grover Norquist was at the height of his powers. Obama had promised not to raise taxes on the middle class during his 2008 campaign, and he didn't want anyone to accuse him of breaking that promise, even though he just had. Senate Democrats cravenly called the tax a "penalty," even though it actually operated as a tax. When pressed by George Stephanopolous in a November 2009 interview on ABC News, Obama refused to admit that the mandate was a tax, even after Stephanopolous informed Obama that he had actually read the bill and that it looked like a tax to him.

The Justice Department, however, argued that the mandate was a tax from the outset. They knew that what politicians said made no difference to the actual constitutional issues. They were professionals, and they wanted to advance every argument that had a chance to win. They fully expected that the case would be decided on the Commerce Clause, because that's what Congress and the president had emphasized, and they thought there was plenty of law to support them. But a few Justice Department officials asked me, Andrew Pincus at Mayer Brown, and Gillian Metzger and Trevor Morrison of Columbia Law School to write an amicus brief on the tax issues to bolster the argument, just in case it was necessary.

We kept submitting different versions of the tax power brief throughout the litigation, in the district courts, in the circuit courts and eventually in the Supreme Court, where we were joined by several other law professors. During this entire time, the debate was structured on terms set by the mandate's opponents. All attention was focused on the Commerce Clause. Over the course of three years -- even before the law was enacted -- I did countless debates and interviews about the mandate, each time emphasizing that this was an easy case under the power to tax. It was no use. Opponents had taken over the terms of debate. The only thing people wanted to talk about was broccoli.

When the case reached the Supreme Court in March, Justice Antonin Scalia played the broccoli card once again. He gleefully noted that Obama himself had said the mandate wasn't a tax. Chief Justice John Roberts wasn't so sure. On the first day of oral argument, he noted that the mandate looked like a tax to him.

Liberals were dispirited by the oral arguments before the court. People piled on Solicitor General Donald Verrilli for taking a sip of water and coughing at the beginning of his presentation. What they didn't know is that Verrilli had quietly beefed up the tax power arguments in his final brief before the Supreme Court.

A few days ago, Intrade thought there was a 71% chance that the mandate would go down. That shows how cleverly and effectively opponents of the mandate had shifted the terms of public debate. But they did so only by hiding the ball and downplaying the most obvious argument for the Affordable Care Act's constitutionality.

When push came to shove, Roberts was unwilling to strike the Affordable Care Act down if there was a perfectly good argument for upholding it. And there was: the tax power argument. Roberts explained that, like the other conservatives, he didn't buy the Commerce Clause theory. Yet when he read the language of the statute, he understood that it could easily be read as a tax. And as a tax, the case for its constitutionality was an easy one. And so he upheld it.

The health care case did make important new law, but not in the area of the individual mandate. The court held that Congress could give states a choice of whether to accept new Medicaid funding but that Congress couldn't threaten to eliminate all funding under the existing version of Medicaid if states refused the deal. Congress could offer those terms if it had made only minor changes to the program, but the new Medicaid program -- extending health care to everyone under 133% of the poverty line -- was sufficiently different in kind from the old program that the states did not have fair warning.

The opponents of the mandate moved a fringe position about the Constitution from off-the-wall to on-the-wall. They successfully shaped the terms of the public debate over the Affordable Care Act. But as Abraham Lincoln once said, you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. In the end, the mandate's opponents couldn't fool all of the justices who had actually read the statute. They upheld the Constitution, and the law.

Comedy gold, huh? I don't think I could believe that anyone with an ounce of intelligence that has read the overall ACA would believe that it is a good law/act.

Just shows a very strong political bias. Should Obama lose the election I trust that the new president will call for an exhaustive study of how to provide true health care reform without adding the thousands of IRS agents to enforce the act. Of those 4500 will be armed. Does that sound like a good thing?

RedNeckRaider
06-30-2012, 10:01 AM
Strange Barry is on record railing against the individual mandate. Of course he is on record as being against most of what he stands for now. Two parties, two flip flops. Mitt is nothing more than (anybody but Obama) Mitt is a shitbag but he is a different shitbag so he gets my vote. Maybe he will stumble around and be forced to create a budget. Two parties and no choice~

stevieray
06-30-2012, 10:03 AM
...we have to pass it before we read it.

Mr. Flopnuts
06-30-2012, 10:04 AM
Strange Barry is on record railing against the individual mandate. Of course he is on record as being against most of what he stands for now. Two parties, two flip flops. Mitt is nothing more than (anybody but Obama) Mitt is a shitbag but he is a different shitbag so he gets my vote. Maybe he will stumble around and be forced to create a budget. Two parties and no choice~

Albert Einstein defines insanity as repeating the same action over and over again while expecting a different result. Our society is insane.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 10:12 AM
...we have to pass it before we read it.

Politicians too lazy, too complacent, OR too dumb to actually read it....imagine that. Yet we keep voting them into office. Plenty of them on both sides of the aisle. Not even bothered to have someone "objective" or "smart" bother to interpret it for them, due to their ideological motivations. Most still haven't read it (or bothered to have it really explained) two years later.

FWIW, it was the Republicans, especially, that didn't read it this time. And it cost them.

RedNeckRaider
06-30-2012, 10:14 AM
...we have to pass it before we read it.

As crazy as that is, that was the stance from the left. The leftwing nuts just babble on how great it is. I would be shocked if anyone who posts here has read it or understands it. I will admit I have not, less a few cost related points. I have a pretty large back log of things I want to read...this is down the list quite a bit~

RedNeckRaider
06-30-2012, 10:16 AM
Politicians too lazy, too complacent, and too dumb to actually read it....imagine that. Yet we keep voting them into office. Plenty of them on both sides of the aisle. Not evenMost still haven't read it two years later.

FWIW, it was the Republicans, especially, that didn't read it this time. And it cost them.

I would wager every single president is more educated than any poster here. We talk trash but the above statement stands~

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 10:16 AM
As crazy as that is, that was the stance from the left. The leftwing nuts just babble on how great it is. I would be shocked if anyone who posts here has read it or understands it. I will admit I have not, less a few cost related points. I have a pretty large back log of things I want to read...this is down the list quite a bit~

I haven't read it, verbatim, either; if I were a member of Congress though, I certainly would have.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 10:17 AM
I would wager every single president is smarter than every poster here. We talk trash but the above statement stands~

Eh, W. not so much...but, generally, I agree. At 130-ish though, W was no shining star--but still smarter than most here, I agree.

Iz Zat Chew
06-30-2012, 10:18 AM
I haven't read it, verbatim, either; if I were a member of Congress though, I certainly would have.

I don't believe that you can honestly say that. Anyone that would be in congress when that bill came along were all working in the system and there wasn't time between when it was presented to the time it was voted on to have read it and researched what it was about.

RedNeckRaider
06-30-2012, 10:20 AM
Eh, W. not so much...but, generally, I agree. At 130-ish though, W was no shining star--but still smarter than most here, I agree.

I revised that, and yes I do also think W is smater than both of us~

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 10:21 AM
I don't believe that you can honestly say that.

Yeah, I can. And I did. And I would. Period.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 10:21 AM
I revised that, and yes I do also think W is smater than both of us~

Speak for yourself.... :p

:hmmm:

Iz Zat Chew
06-30-2012, 10:22 AM
Yeah, I can. And I did. And I would. Period.

Forgive me if I'm not convinced. At that time you either played the game or you didn't, if you are a democrat you would have backed the bill regardless. If you were a republican you wouldn't have had time.

RedNeckRaider
06-30-2012, 10:24 AM
Speak for yourself.... :p

:hmmm:

;) All here have a very inflated veiw of themselves~

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 10:26 AM
I haven't read it, verbatim, either; if I were a member of Congress though, I certainly would have.So is the mandate a tax or a penalty?

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 10:36 AM
So is the mandate a tax or a penalty?

Democrats, supporters and popular rhetoric called it a penalty (so did Republicans); the law, and the SC, called it a "tax."

Take your pick. I'm sure now, Republicans, will insist it's a tax though. Heh.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 10:42 AM
Well if you want to go by original intent, aka that of the Framers, such a tax would still be unConstitutional because the tax and spend clause was supposed to be limited by the enumerated powers. Taxes for such a measure is not authorized. Unfortunately, that shipped sailed long ago, due to the revolution 'er I mean activism of the courts in the 1930's which overturned this idea. So much for stare decisis when a progressive ignores it. That's only for a conservative. The ghost of FDR is still haunting us today.

Since this was argued on the commerce clause by opponents, the Obama administration very obviously pulled bait and switch style fraud when their side changed by arguing it was a tax. Commies are the biggest liars.

This provides a club now for defeating Obama. Obama said he was willing to be a one term president if he just got this one bill through. The election is going to be not just about the economy but a referendum on Obamacare. The two are related anyways.

go bowe
06-30-2012, 10:47 AM
a tax...

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 10:51 AM
... Unfortunately, that shipped sailed long ago...

You should just copy and paste that response for about 80% of your posts.

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 10:57 AM
Democrats, supporters and popular rhetoric called it a penalty (so did Republicans); the law, and the SC, called it a "tax."

Take your pick. I'm sure now, Republicans, will insist it's a tax though. Heh.So you don't know or won't say.

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 10:58 AM
a tax...Which is true otherwise it would have been struck down.

go bowe
06-30-2012, 10:59 AM
So is the mandate a tax or a penalty?

well that's easy...

it's a tax penalty... :p

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 11:01 AM
a tax...

If they insist.

The beauty, however, it that supporters will be able to insist this is ONLY a "tax" on free-loaders---folks who refuse their responsibility to pay for their own way in the healthcare system.

Good luck to Republicans opposing a tax on irresponsible free-loaders who, largely, are the ones who have forced this issue in the first place.

I can see it now, John Boehner and Mitch Mcconnell: "We must defend the right of irresponsible slugs to leach off off responsible Americans!!!"

go bowe
06-30-2012, 11:17 AM
If they insist.

The beauty, however, it that supporters will be able to insist this is ONLY a "tax" on free-loaders---folks who refuse their responsibility to pay for their own way in the healthcare system.

Good luck to Republicans opposing a tax on irresponsible free-loaders who, largely, are the ones who have forced this issue in the first place.

I can see it now, John Boehner and Mitch Mcconnell: "We must defend the right of irresponsible slugs to leach off off responsible Americans!!!"

but only if they are *gasp* republicans...

democrats should pay the tax regardless of whether or not they buy insurance...

in fact, democrats should pay more in taxes than wealthy people....

especially those free-loading poor people, yeah they should pay more taxes, that'll teach them to find a job and work for a living like republicans do...

indeed, they should raise my taxes too...

wait, do independents count?

Chiefshrink
06-30-2012, 11:49 AM
Pure and simple the reason why all on both sides of the aisle politically and in the media were taken back and surprised is because both sides were thinking 'inside' the confines of the Law/Constitution and based on that it should fail.

However, Roberts was thinking 'outside' the law and actually helped the Left re-write this as a tax.

Worst Judicial Activism in our SCOTUS's history. Total Progressive/Marxist BS !!!:shake:

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 11:55 AM
Pure and simple the reason why all on both sides of the aisle politically and in the media were taken back and surprised is because both sides were thinking 'inside' the confines of the Law/Constitution and based on that it should fail.

However, Roberts was thinking 'outside' the law and actually helped the Left re-write this as a tax.

Worst Judicial Activism in our SCOTUS's history. Total Progressive/Marxist BS !!!:shake:

Wrong. It's clear it's you that has no clue about the "law;" you only focus is RWNJ lunatic fringe ideology.

Those who are thinking "outside" the law, are the ones focused on political rhetoric and ideology--rather than reading the actual words of the law, that clearly cast this within the "taxing" authority of the Feds--just as Roberts said.

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 12:06 PM
Eh, W. not so much...but, generally, I agree. At 130-ish though, W was no shining star--but still smarter than most here, I agree.

130? Was that his SAT score? He might be smarter than most here, but that really is a low bar to clear.

Iz Zat Chew
06-30-2012, 12:08 PM
Democrats, supporters and popular rhetoric called it a penalty (so did Republicans); the law, and the SC, called it a "tax."

Take your pick. I'm sure now, Republicans, will insist it's a tax though. Heh.

No, it's always been a penalty. Now even more it must be validated due to the addition of armed IRS agents to enforce ACA.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=irs+agents+with+guns&oq=IRS+Agents+&gs_l=hp.3.2.0l4.0.0.1.436.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0.RbeK6qVeb1Q&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=b718c95f8418404a&biw=1440&bih=747

http://www.foxbusiness.com/government/2012/06/29/scotus-ruling-means-bigger-more-intrusive-irs/

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/insurance/2010-04-29-healthirs28_CV_N.htm

There are plenty of stories out there and the ones that should bother every American is that the fine for not having health insurance is $695 or 2.5 (by 2014 I believe) of your annual salary which ever is greater. So all of you big rollers that are below the "rich status" making $100K a year will pay $2500 in additional taxes (penalty tax). If you are in the "rich" category, if the definition is still $250K per year income, will pay $6250 in additional taxes (again the penalty tax).

I would estimate that most people that are in the $100K range have about 1/3 of their income withheld for income taxes by the fed and state. What they actually pay is depending on their deductions, legal or not, that reduces their tax burden. The ACA seems to give the IRS unprecidented access to your income by way of your employer! Based on commentary in more than one of the links, they can inquire at will and the employer has no choice but to comply.

Yep, you democrats really passed a great law/act FOR the country. For the people it's the biggest piece of shit legislation ever conceived and forced on the public.

I know we need health care reform, but this will do nothing for reforming healthcare, nor will it enrich the medical field with the desire to do better than they did in the past.

Obama said, prior to his election, that America was the greatest nation in the world. He followed that with hope and change. If it was truly the greatest nation in the world why would we need hope and change? There currently is no hope for the economy, no hope to ever pay off the national debt and the country is changing for the worse.

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 12:10 PM
Well if you want to go by original intent, aka that of the Framers, such a tax would still be unConstitutional because the tax and spend clause was supposed to be limited by the enumerated powers. Taxes for such a measure is not authorized.


Congress may levy taxes "for the general welfare." Sorry, but its there. Its a wide and ambiguous power that is ripe for abuse, but that's what was written. Courts have given wide discretion to Congress to determine what fits.

The Founders were smart and brave men, but they weren't perfect, and they left a gaping hole with that one.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 12:12 PM
130? Was that his SAT score? He might be smarter than most here, but that really is a low bar to clear.

Eh, the non-partisan sites I've seen....put him beyond the first standard deviation above the "average" and in the 130-ish range--despite the temptation to demagogue otherwise, over political differences.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 12:16 PM
Congress may levy taxes "for the general welfare." Sorry, but its there. Its a wide and ambiguous power that is ripe for abuse, but that's what was written. Courts have given wide discretion to Congress to determine what fits.

The Founders were smart and brave men, but they weren't perfect, and they left a gaping hole with that one.

Nope. You left the rest out.

If you plan to rehash the Hamiltonian v Madison argument all over again in detail though, I don't feel like wasting my time on it with you as it belongs in it own thread. I side with Madison, who wrote the document that Hamilton subverted. Remember, ALL of Hammy's ideas were rejected at the original convention. So sorry, your cherry-picking out of context, leaving the rest of the language out to show how it applies doesn't fly with me.

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 12:17 PM
Eh, the non-partisan sites I've seen....put him beyond the first standard deviation above the "average" and in the 130-ish range--despite the temptation to demagogue otherwise, over political differences.

Not sure how they derived that, but whatever the actual IQ, he came off as lazy and uninterested.

Iz Zat Chew
06-30-2012, 12:19 PM
Not sure how they derived that, but whatever the actual IQ, he came off as lazy and uninterested.

Where do you get the lazy and uninterested charge? Michael Moore?ROFL

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 12:26 PM
Nope. You left the rest out.

If you plan to rehash the Hamiltonian v Madison argument all over again in detail though, I don't feel like wasting my time on it with you as it belongs in it own thread. I side with Madison, who wrote the document that Hamilton subverted. Remember, ALL of Hammy's ideas were rejected at the original convention. So sorry, your cherry-picking out of context, leaving the rest of the language out to show how it applies doesn't fly with me.

I assure that I do not wish to rehash the Hamiltonian v Madison argument--in fact, just the opposite. You are always so interested in going over the minutae of the philosophies and debates the preceded the document. While all of that might be interesting as background, all that matters is what is left on the paper. Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes for the gneral welfare. Its broad and can be abused, but its there.

cosmo20002
06-30-2012, 12:26 PM
Where do you get the lazy and uninterested charge? Michael Moore?ROFL

My eyes and ears.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 12:28 PM
I assure that I do not wish to rehash the Hamiltonian v Madison argument--in fact, just the opposite. You are always so interested in going over the minutae of the philosophies and debates the preceded the document. While all of that might be interesting as background, all that matters is what is left on the paper. Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes for the gneral welfare. Its broad and can be abused, but its there.

Well, you made Hamilton's argument—that the "general welfare" was a broad grant of power. That's why.
I am interested in such because I am interested in restoring America based on what she was formed to be NOT Leninism on an installment plan. Ya' know "transforming America" because we can "never go back" to what we once were. /Obama]

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 01:14 PM
Well, you made Hamilton's argument—that the "general welfare" was a broad grant of power. That's why.
I am interested in such because I am interested in restoring America based on what she was formed to be NOT Leninism on an installment plan. Ya' know "transforming America" because we can "never go back" to what we once were. /Obama]

False dichotomy...

Original Intent/Antiquated Notions of Republic (220 years removed)

OR

COMMUNISM!!!!

"There is no choice between the two, I tell you!!!" --BEP

As an aside, perhaps we should go back 220 years with role of women in society? :hmmm:

go bowe
06-30-2012, 01:38 PM
False dichotomy...

Original Intent/Antiquated Notions of Republic (220 years removed)

OR

COMMUNISM!!!!

"There is no choice between the two, I tell you!!!" --BEP

As an aside, perhaps we should go back 220 years with role of women in society? :hmmm:

would rush support that?

how bout maddow?

only an obot would think so! :p

Chiefshrink
06-30-2012, 02:03 PM
Those who are thinking "outside" the law, are the ones focused on political rhetoric and ideology--rather than reading the actual words of the law, that clearly cast this within the "taxing" authority of the Feds--just as Roberts said.

Like your Progressive/Marxist side, look in the mirror !

WRONG ! Roberts had to find way to save this act in order to do 2 things IMO. 1] Not to allow the bench to appear too partisan politically and look like activist judges of which he actually did even more by voting with the Marxists. DUMBASS that is out of touch with "We The People" for sure !!

2] Any RINO must be liked by the Left at all cost even if it means 'spitting' on the Constitution by splitting hairs 'disingenuously' to do it thus becoming a hero of the Left. :shake:

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 02:07 PM
Sorry Kotter, Roberts just re-wrote a law that was touted by it's creators as not even being a tax. The Obama team engaged in a Bait and Switch fraud when it said in court it was a tax. Kennedy, the moderate, was visibly angry when the opinion was read. So much for partisanship when he's the swing vote.

Dylan
06-30-2012, 02:17 PM
Can you give me the link to your thread surrounding your updated thoughts and knowledge on Obamacare vs. Doctors and Surgeons Associations, American Association of Medical Colleges, top medical research organizations, The Doctors Company, which is the largest insurer of physician and surgeon medical liability in the nation, etc...And why the health care industry including pharmaceutical companies as a whole, hate Obamacare more than the general public.

The reason you are asked to discuss your research interests and thoughts is because Obamacare and its far reaching effects in our health care will be moving further away from doctor-patient relationship and more towards patient as a commodity based health care.

Thanks in advance.

Chiefshrink
06-30-2012, 02:24 PM
Sorry Kotter, Roberts just re-wrote a law that was touted by it's creators as not even being a tax. The Obama team engaged in a Bait and Switch fraud when it said in court it was a tax. Kennedy, the moderate, was visibly angry when the opinion was read. So much for partisanship when he's the swing vote.

And a BIG ASS BAIT-N-SWITCH at that:thumb:

Calcountry
06-30-2012, 02:27 PM
Sorry Kotter, Roberts just re-wrote a law that was touted by it's creators as not even being a tax. The Obama team engaged in a Bait and Switch fraud when it said in court it was a tax. Kennedy, the moderate, was visibly angry when the opinion was read. So much for partisanship when he's the swing vote.FDR pulled the same move back in the day. To this day, people still think that Social Security is "insurance".

Chiefshrink
06-30-2012, 02:27 PM
Can you give me the link to your thread surrounding your updated thoughts and knowledge on Obamacare vs. Doctors and Surgeons Associations, American Association of Medical Colleges, top medical research organizations, The Doctors Company, which is the largest insurer of physician and surgeon medical liability in the nation, etc...And why the health care industry including pharmaceutical companies as a whole, hate Obamacare more than the general public.

The reason you are asked to discuss your research interests and thoughts is because Obamacare and its far reaching effects in our health care will be moving further away from doctor-patient relationship and more towards patient as a commodity based health care.

Thanks in advance.

We 'conservatives' here in this forum have been asking for honest debate for the last 2 and 1/2 yrs on this same issue from the progressive side and it's just been crickets......

Maybe you might get a response. If so, how substantive remains to be seen as you suggest:shrug:

Chiefshrink
06-30-2012, 02:28 PM
FDR pulled the same move back in the day. To this day, people still think that Social Security is "insurance".

Yep and a RIGHT !:shake:

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 02:30 PM
FDR pulled the same move back in the day. To this day, people still think that Social Security is "insurance".

...and that it's funded and doing fine. ROFL Delusional folks. :doh!:

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 02:36 PM
Can you give me the link to your thread surrounding your updated thoughts and knowledge on Obamacare vs. Doctors and Surgeons Associations, American Association of Medical Colleges, top medical research organizations, The Doctors Company, which is the largest insurer of physician and surgeon medical liability in the nation, etc...And why the health care industry including pharmaceutical companies as a whole, hate Obamacare more than the general public.

The reason you are asked to discuss your research interests and thoughts is because Obamacare and its far reaching effects in our health care will be moving further away from doctor-patient relationship and more towards patient as a commodity based health care.

Thanks in advance.

Sorry, some of us have real lives to attend to. However, the main reason many in the industry dislike the ACA because it will, eventually, rein-in their profit margins. It's that simple. The effects of the ACA are, indeed, far-reaching and will negatively affect profit margins in the for-profit sector of the healthcare industry. Of course, they oppose it.

However, if the current system only affords doctor-patient relationships for those able to afford inflated pricing for services driven by for-profit motivations....then a patient as a commodity based health care system becomes preferable, in the minds of many, to one that can bankrupt average working class Americans with a one costly diagnosis.

Only whackjobs will insist on a Cadilac coverage on the taxpayers dime; most will be content paying their own way--within a reasonable price structure. It's not asking for too much to allow for reasonable and humane coverage for all, at the expense of a more modest bottom-line in the for-profit sectors of the industry.

Dylan
06-30-2012, 02:52 PM
Sorry, some of us have real lives to attend to. However, the main reason many in the industry dislike the ACA because it will, eventually, rein-in their profit margins. It's that simple. The effects of the ACA are, indeed, far-reaching and will negatively affect profit margins in the for-profit sector of the healthcare industry. Of course, they oppose it.

However, if the current system only affords doctor-patient relationships for those able to afford inflated pricing for services driven by for-profit motivations....then a patient as a commodity based health care system becomes preferable, in the minds of many, to one that can bankrupt average working class Americans with a one costly diagnosis.

Only whackjobs will insist on a Cadilac coverage on the taxpayers dime; most will be content paying their own way--within a reasonable price structure. It's not asking for too much to allow for reasonable and humane coverage for all, at the expense of a more modest bottom-line in the for-profit sectors of the industry.

I suggest you do your homework and offer some RESEARCH.

There is a reason why foreigners, WHO can afford it -come to America for their health care.

A little FYI for you: New York City is home to over 80% of teaching hospitals in the world. The doctors are fleeing the industry!

If you care about health care, do your own research!

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 03:03 PM
I suggest you do your homework and offer some RESEARCH.

There is a reason why foreigners, WHO can afford it -come to America for their health care.

A little FYI for you: New York City is home to over 80% of teaching hospitals in the world. The doctors are fleeing the industry!

If you care about health care, do your own research!

A little FYI for you: over HALF of all personal bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses.

Remind those whining about Obamacare about that....

Dylan
06-30-2012, 03:06 PM
A little FYI for you: over HALF of all personal bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses.

Remind those whining about Obamacare about that....

Blame Congress for that - When was the last time lawyers fees were capped.

NEVER!

98% of our elected politicians are LAWYERS!

Dylan
06-30-2012, 03:12 PM
God forbid, we center on Lawyers and the Professional Services Industry, Mr. Kotter.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 03:22 PM
Sorry, some of us have real lives to attend to. However, the main reason many in the industry dislike the ACA because it will, eventually, rein-in their profit margins. It's that simple. The effects of the ACA are, indeed, far-reaching and will negatively affect profit margins in the for-profit sector of the healthcare industry. Of course, they oppose it.
Uh, no, I thought the far left in your party didn't like the plan because it gave the corporations more business.
And even if it was due to profit, the profits they were making were due to govt mandates, which they love but they just pass on the costs.

You do not understand markets as in free markets. The tendency is for prices to go down and procedures to improve reducing costs.

Govt sees a problem. It legislates to solve it. It creates two more problems. Then it intervenes to fix those new problems until—VOILA!—socialism is implemented.

Nowhere is this more dramatic than in medical care. ( also higher education )

Govt legislated, mandated and subsidized medical insurance to ease the burden. Just the existence of healthcare insurance, which was established or subsidized or promoted by the government to help ease the previous burden of medical care as a third party pay increases the demand curve. Things such as Medicaid, Medicare, Blue Cross, etc. Then the HMO act and legislation leading to dependency on employment. Govt has also cartelized the medical industry which is another factor.


As Mises said:
In economic terms, this means that the demand curve for physicians and hospitals can rise without limit. In short, in a form grotesquely different from Say's Law, the suppliers can literally create their own demand through unlimited third-party payments to pick up the tab. If demand curves rise virtually without limit, so too do the prices of the service.

In recent years the government and other third-party insurers have felt obliged to restrict somewhat the flow of goodies created by govt largesse by increasing deductibles, or by putting caps on Medicare payments to stem the costs. I expect the govt to do the same thing and where they don't there will be lines and waiting. Will we see the same gnashing of teeth from the entitlement crowd when this happens?

Rothbard (http://lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard295.html) wrote about the Flexner Report commissioned by the Carnegie Foundation, where the "AMA was able to use government to cartelize the medical profession: to push the supply curve drastically to the left (literally half the medical schools in the country were put out of business by post-Flexner state governments), and thereby to raise medical and hospital prices and doctors' incomes."

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 03:24 PM
I suggest you do your homework and offer some RESEARCH.

There is a reason why foreigners, WHO can afford it -come to America for their health care.

A little FYI for you: New York City is home to over 80% of teaching hospitals in the world. The doctors are fleeing the industry!


There's not enough doctors to be able to handle any sudden surge of healthcare consumers as this has not happened through market forces, even if they don't leave. They have more assistants though....but it's gotta effect quality.

Dylan
06-30-2012, 03:34 PM
There's not enough doctors to be able to handle any sudden surge of healthcare consumers as this has not happened through market forces, even if they don't leave. They have more assistants though....but it's gotta effect quality.

Agreed.

If Obama is re-elected, get used to a nurse practitioner driven consultation.

Enjoyed reading your post above, BucEyedPea.




Vote Wisely in 2012

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 03:51 PM
So let's recap.

Kotter posts a thread he agrees with in that the mandate is actually a tax. He mocks the republicans for playing stupid politics.

But he is also ok with Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and other dems claiming it is not a tax. For total political purposes of course. Obama has stated over and over it is not a tax and should never be considered a tax. Lying to the public for political gain is ok in Kotter's head as long as it isn't the republicans doing it. He finds it more funnny to mock republicans than point out that Obama actually has broken another campaign promise by raising taxes on the middle class.

So it is clear that in Kotter's world funny is repubicans attacking the law as Obama frames/framed it, which is a lie.

See, now to me, that's comedy gold and Kotter just being Kotter.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 03:59 PM
So let's recap.

Kotter posts a thread he agrees with in that the mandate is actually a tax. He mocks the republicans for playing stupid politics.

But he is also ok with Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and other dems claiming it is not a tax. For total political purposes of course. Obama has stated over and over it is not a tax and should never be considered a tax. Lying to the public for political gain is ok in Kotter's head as long as it isn't the republicans doing it. He finds it more funnny to mock republicans than point out that Obama actually has broken another campaign promise by raising taxes on the middle class.

So it is clear that in Kotter's world funny is repubicans attacking the law as Obama frames/framed it, which is a lie.

See, now to me, that's comedy gold and Kotter just being Kotter.


Don't forget how the right on the SC vote as a partisan block, when the progressive also vote as a partisan block. Yet, it was a justice from the right that didn't on the issue the actually upheld Obamacare and the moderate/swing justice didn't. That's ideological rhetoric being scorned here as comedy gold.

ChiefaRoo
06-30-2012, 04:27 PM
So it turns out that Obama passed a large health tax on the American people that as a percentage will hit the middle class and the healthy/young the hardest.

Anyone who thinks the IRS won't use their new power to force compliance is delusional.

notorious
06-30-2012, 04:30 PM
If this was so great, why did they have to use every trick in the book to pass it?


Shouldn't it have passed on merit?

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 04:48 PM
Blame Congress for that - When was the last time lawyers fees were capped.

NEVER!

98% of our elected politicians are LAWYERS!

Frivolous lawsuits are out-of-control; no argument from me about that. So let's do tort-reform now, too. However, don't pretend that's the biggest part of this, or anywhere close to it.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 04:58 PM
If this was so great, why did they have to use every trick in the book to pass it?


Shouldn't it have passed on merit?

Merit? Are you kidding me? Merit and politics are two separate worlds, too often. Bottom-line: average Americans are stupid, and can't handle the truth. On top of that, everybody wants something for nothing--or at least champagne on a beer budget.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 08:58 PM
Wow....my last TWO posts have left the RWNJ types and/or Libertarian-Douchebag-Types from this site from actually responding in a substantive way.

VERY COOL....heh. :thumb:

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 09:00 PM
Wow....my last TWO posts have left the RWNJ types and/or Libertarian-Douchebag-Types from this site from actually responding in a substantive way.

VERY COOL....heh. :thumb:And your original thread with commentary make you look like an idiot.

BucEyedPea
06-30-2012, 09:05 PM
If this was so great, why did they have to use every trick in the book to pass it?


Shouldn't it have passed on merit?

Excellent point.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 09:07 PM
And your original thread with commentary make you look like an idiot.

Only in the mind of a "tea party" sympathizing Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck listening "dittohead" would THAT be true. Heh. Someone has to be that dude, I suppose. Heh.

GOOD JOB!!! :thumb:

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 09:12 PM
Only in the mind of a "tea party" sympathizing Limbaugh-Hannity-Beck listening "dittohead" would THAT be true. Heh. Someone has to be that dude, I suppose. Heh.

GOOD JOB!!! :thumb:What would it take to make you move to another state so you can fuck up their kids instead of ours?

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 09:29 PM
What would it take to make you move to another state so you can **** up their kids instead of ours?

FORTUNATELY, for you and future generations....Douche-gaard interjected his invasion way too early, so that means he "waited" too long, LONG ENOUGH to require "older folks" in the Education field to be forced into "stayin'" here....due to "retirement incentives" (ones Walker from WI, and your type in-state) you would take away from "us" after-the-fact....and reneging on your "promises,"....but, hey, 'promises' aren't "real" anyway--especially to Republicans in this state.--and others who want to fugg "public employees."

Just sayin...:shrug:

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 09:36 PM
FORTUNATELY, for you and future generations....Douche-gaard interjected his invasion way too early, so that means he "waited" too long, LONG ENOUGH to require "older folks" in the Education field to be forced into "stayin'" here....due to "retirement incentives" (ones Walker from WI, and your type in-state) would take away from "us" after-the-fact....and reneging on their "promises,"....but, hey, 'promises' aren't "real" anyway--especially to Republicans in this state.--and others who want to fugg "public employees."

Just sayin...:shrug:ROFL Oh I get it now. I'll call Dennis tomorrow and see if he will make give you an exemption.

Amnorix
06-30-2012, 09:36 PM
Nope. You left the rest out.

If you plan to rehash the Hamiltonian v Madison argument all over again in detail though, I don't feel like wasting my time on it with you as it belongs in it own thread. I side with Madison, who wrote the document that Hamilton subverted. Remember, ALL of Hammy's ideas were rejected at the original convention. So sorry, your cherry-picking out of context, leaving the rest of the language out to show how it applies doesn't fly with me.


So wrong, as usual. History - it's not whatever lew Rockwell says it is...

Amnorix
06-30-2012, 09:38 PM
Blame Congress for that - When was the last time lawyers fees were capped.

NEVER!

98% of our elected politicians are LAWYERS!


You think malpractice claims are at the root of exploding healthcare costs?!? I have no doubt thy contribute, but that's a joke.

Amnorix
06-30-2012, 09:39 PM
In fact, Congress made things even easier. The only consequence for failing to pay the tax was that your income tax refund would be reduced by a bit. And if you didn't have a tax refund that year, there were no consequences at all!

Congress provided that failure to pay the tax would not result in either criminal penalties or tax liens. Nobody would come after you if you didn't pay the tax.

This is a giant lie.

How so?

petegz28
06-30-2012, 09:40 PM
You think malpractice claims are at the root of exploding healthcare costs?!? I have no doubt thy contribute, but that's a joke.

I agree with this. While I am for TORT reform the majority of health care costs spur not only from fear of being sued but fraud as well. Then toss in the sub-urban Mom who has to take the kids to the doctor every time their nose runs.

Mr. Kotter
06-30-2012, 09:40 PM
ROFL Oh I get it now. I'll call Dennis tomorrow and see if he will make give you an exemption.

No exemption required. It sounds like we get the opportunity to EMBARRASS Dennis in November. I'll stick around for that.

Or even better, that Mickelson will challenge him in the Republican primary next year; or at least promise to be a 'real' alternative to the Tea-Party crap "ideology."

Extra Point
06-30-2012, 09:40 PM
If this was so great, why did they have to use every trick in the book to pass it?


Shouldn't it have passed on merit?

NO. They would have all passed out, trying to stay awake to read it!

mlyonsd
06-30-2012, 09:42 PM
How so?WTH made you wake up? Did you leave Martha's Vineyard?

|Zach|
06-30-2012, 10:37 PM
We 'conservatives' here in this forum have been asking for honest debate for the last 2 and 1/2 yrs on this same issue from the progressive side and it's just been crickets......

Maybe you might get a response. If so, how substantive remains to be seen as you suggest:shrug:

Link?

Mr. Kotter
07-01-2012, 12:25 AM
We 'conservatives' here in this forum have been asking for honest debate for the last 2 and 1/2 yrs on this same issue from the progressive side and it's just been crickets......

Maybe you might get a response. If so, how substantive remains to be seen as you suggest:shrug:

LINK??? Seriously....heh? LMAO

Iz Zat Chew
07-01-2012, 05:26 AM
My eyes and ears.

Seems like an answer like that from anyone else draws your ire.

You obviously have nothing of substance to back your comment.

Mr. Kotter
07-01-2012, 07:17 PM
And your original thread with commentary make you look like an idiot.

Okay, okay....man; you are right. I was a bit over-the-top. Sorry dude. I'll try to tone it down a wee bit for you, man. Just because you are a neighbor, though. Okay? Less bold, colored, caps, smilies...just for you.

Dylan
07-01-2012, 11:31 PM
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, former health adviser to President Obama is Rahm’s older brother. The doctor is a bioethicist who served as a special health care advisor to the Obama administration. This series of articles will introduce you to the principles behind Obamacare…health care rationing on a cost-saving basis. This will send chills up your spine.

Not to be overwhelmed, these authored articles will be posted over time.


Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel will be identified as such in his published articles on the JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) and Hastings Report websites at end of the post.

I would also like to introduce you to Dr. David Blumenthal, a Harvard professor and key health advisor to President Obama sometime this week.


Excerpts: published in The New York Post (July 24, 2008) - Quick background only.

The health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).



I urge you to read the articles carefully:

The Perfect Storm of Overutilization - Author Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD PhD;, June 18, 2009 JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association)
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=182076


Where Civil Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet – Author Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Hastings Report Nov.-Dec ‘96
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:wQUuBwVntlcJ:www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf+Hastings+Center+Report,+Nov.-Dec.+'96+Dr.+Ezekiel+Emanuel&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgd5HBBw8UWFPS_tsboiMgXr2dXPYdwjgy5XsLXd5zQNft6iE_EpVTMSCwbjveerUTvHhBnMadVhLuE5HaU7XValJ P6yQWWmn9Wl1-RlJryZUo2OoKIb_biJpBr1eVFge3OWQwc&sig=AHIEtbQcTmGGLMhb8TbmfMnXFOuX4msYAA

Dylan
07-01-2012, 11:58 PM
Background:

Dr. E. Emanuel Restructuring the National Healthcare System

August 9, 2009 - Democrats announced on Wednesday that a deal was finally reached in the house to move healthcare reform forward, clearing the way for a vote in September.

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is one of the key players in helping the Obama administration create sweeping reforms in the health care system. His role is to make the case for reform while reassuring medical professionals that it will not lead to an unwelcome upheaval.


“You are not going to flip a switch and change our system,” he said in a recent interview. “It’s got to be an evolution, not a revolution.”

Ezekiel is the older brother of Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, whom he speaks to daily. Described as an outspoken, accomplished academic with impressive medical and policy credentials, Ezekiel has spent the past two decades writing about guaranteeing health care for all. He brings a multitude of strengths to his position, including a medical perspective which was lacking during the debates over health care reform in the Clinton presidency.

According to Vitals.com, he received his medical degree at Harvard University, completed a residency in internal medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and a fellowship in Hematology and Oncology at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute.

There are those who are critical of his ability to improve the system. In a controversial editorial printed in Bloomberg, former Lieutenant Governor, Betsy McCaughey blasted Emanuel, warning Americans that provisions of the stimulus bill “are bad for your health” and discriminates against older patients.

And although he is well-respected in medical and academic circles, health care reform advocates question his experience.

But Emanuel feels he has had unique preparation.


“I can say things that other people may not be able to. It’s the perspective of having been in the trenches, having had to negotiate with insurance companies and doctors and patients and trying to get services. I think I understand the mechanics out there better than an economist or a health policy expert who has studied it from afar.”


Read more: http://spotlight.vitals.com/2009/07/dr-ezekiel-emanuel-restructuring-the-national-healthcare-system/#ixzz1zRRDogys



Update: Emanuel, the special health policy adviser to the Office of Management and Budget, left the White House on January 7, 2011.

Dr. Emanuel is the vice provost for Global Initiatives, the Diane v.S. Levy and Robert M. Levy University Professor, and chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at the University of Pennsylvania. He is also an Op-Ed contributor to the New York Times.

http://www.altarum.org/csi/cshs/nac-membership/ezekiel-emanuel

Dear God.

(a few might get it! no comments please!) LMAO

Comrade Crapski
07-02-2012, 04:30 AM
So it turns out that Obama passed a large health tax on the American people that as a percentage will hit the middle class and the healthy/young the hardest.

Anyone who thinks the IRS won't use their new power to force compliance is delusional.

Yesterday, the IRS reported that it will hire 16,000 new Tax Agents to keep up with the new taxes that will result due to the new Obama and Democratic Party Health Bill (AP, 25 March 2010). Obama and the Democratic leadership stated that they want to make sure that everyone pays all their new taxes that result from this new bill.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-424614

Obama is a worthless scumbag.

blaise
07-02-2012, 06:25 AM
Man, Kotter is a total douchebag.

|Zach|
07-02-2012, 07:01 AM
Yesterday, the IRS reported that it will hire 16,000 new Tax Agents to keep up with the new taxes that will result due to the new Obama and Democratic Party Health Bill (AP, 25 March 2010). Obama and the Democratic leadership stated that they want to make sure that everyone pays all their new taxes that result from this new bill.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-424614

Obama is a worthless scumbag.

There is no actual information in the link you just posted. It is just some blog post by a member of the CNN ireport community which is basically a message board.

Total and complete failure on your part.