obumble care decision

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Nadja, Jun 28, 2012.


  1. rsbhunter

    rsbhunter Monkey+

    Our kids....

    It is entirely to much work to raise our own kids!!!!!!!!!! This is the mindset of the parents today....we have tv, Wii, X-Box-and texting, computers, etc to babysit them. We are raising a generation of idiots. Thankfully, our parents took the time to raise us, and love us enough to kick our butts when it was deserved. Oar elss weed be speling like thiz....Thankfully i was hard on my children, and BELIEVE it or not, neither died!!!!!!!!!! In fact, my daughter is 23, Graduates from Texas Tech in Aug., is married (3 years, to the SAME guy) owns there own home, and my son is in his 2nd year of college, and working a part time job....living with a room mate, paying his own way..... It can be done, but it takes us getting off our azzzz's and raising our children...rsbhunter
     
  2. DarkLight

    DarkLight Live Long and Prosper - On Hiatus

    I'm not perfect, not by a long shot but I have some of the deepest conversations about civics, government, freedom and our way of life with my two oldest kids (14 and 10). They are in public schools and my oldest was up on stage over half of the time for her "moving on" ceremony for one award or another for language (she speaks Japanese and Chinese), Science, A honor roll for 8th grade and the Presidents Award for Education for grades for all of middle school.

    This isn't to brag but to say that I'm not leaving it all up to the schools. She comes home and asks for help and we give it to her and fill in the gaping holes.

    My son ended up needing a tutor ON TOP of what my wife and I were able to give him for math and English but it's worth it to make sure he's prepared to succeed.

    My youngest seems to be following in the footsteps of my oldest but she's only 7 so time will tell. The point is that we limit the crap and we don't settle for "good enough" because it isn't in the long run and they are smarter than that.

    I have no doubt that we will discuss the decision at some point but not tonight because my oldest is sleeping over after summer camp (Chinese language camp of all things, sponsored by the local college and...the US State Department).

    --DL
     
  3. Nadja

    Nadja RIP 3-11-2013 Forum Leader

    Well, sounds good, but how about giving them a little quiz. Like things about how the U.S.Govt works, and world affairs ? That may prove interesting........
     
  4. Silversnake

    Silversnake Silverback

    I believe Roberts pulled a fast one against the left.

    He defined the mandate as a tax, setting up a clear overturn if it winds up back in the SCOTUS because it was a tax which did not originate in the HOR. If they don't overturn it on that, the Senate will be allowed to start tax/finance bills.

    He also undermined the commerce clause, energized the conservative base, denergized the liberal base.

    He told the citizenry that you get the government you deserve. The implication is to choose better representatives.

    In the end, I don't really think it matters. The USA is a sinking ship and there are larger problems than this sinking it.
     
    Moatengator, DKR, TwoCrows and 5 others like this.
  5. CraftyMofo

    CraftyMofo Monkey+++

    I've been thinking about this lately, and the only thing that would have mattered was a total overturn of the ACA. Think about it...call it a tax or fee or whatever, the writers of the bill, in my opinion have no intention of forcing people to pay for this. In their minds, they want healthcare to be "free." likely the only reason this was there was to make it look like it wouldn't break the bank, and everyone would have "skin in the game", and it would thus be "fair."
    I'm convinced that the cost of this will be so high, it will be a budget-buster like we've never seen.
     
  6. Falcon15

    Falcon15 Falco Peregrinus

    With thanks to ghrit...

    This is a tax. Yes, according to the SCotUS, the Obamacare "individual mandate" is a TAX.

    What does that mean? It means the IRS is now the enforcement arm of this manda-er um, Tax. Your employer is not responsible for it, the rich will most CERTAINLY not be responsible for it, and big business, well they pay the least amount of tax of all. No, it is going to come out of our pockets, to the tune of $8-9 Trillion.

    Failure to pay said tax will give the IRS the right to seize your assets, deduct from your tax return (pretending you get one), levy fines against you (with interest, I may add, average 10% per annum), and jail you.

    Is there a silver lining to this cloud? Possibly. Taxes are easier to repeal and change than laws.

    edit: for all my liberal friends out there celebrating...this is what we call a Pyrrhic victory. Look that up. Oh yeah, you won. Celebrate away. No accounting for intelligence in the liberal crowd.
     
  7. Falcon15

    Falcon15 Falco Peregrinus

    Trojan512.
     
    Cephus and Guit_fishN like this.
  8. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn RIP 1/13/21

    To me Justice Roberts sly as a fox, Just drove a wooden stake thru the blood sucking vampire heart of Lord Obummer. This should turn so many people against him that he will lose his re-election bid. Perfect timing for an election year!
    .
    The Silver Lining to this Decision, Is that Now Obama Owns this Massive Regressive Tax Increase.
    .
    Conservatives gathering now for a low-tech lynching of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. need to take a quick breath of air and think about what he managed to accomplish by upholding President Obama’s highly unpopular, signature piece of legislation.
    .
    Though he shocked many by joining the left plank on the high court, Justice Roberts. pretty much did what he was supposed to do. He finally put a boundary on how much freedom the federal government can gobble up from states and individuals under the “commerce clause” — that most specious scheme for so much federal thievery.
    .
    Then he told President Obama and his kleptocrats in Congress that they can have their health care law, but they cannot keep lying about it. A tax is a tax and they are liars if they call it anything else. And they just stuck the crippled American taxpayer with one of the biggest, broadest, most regressive tax-hikes in history — and during a deep recession!
     
    Falcon15 and Nadja like this.
  9. Nadja

    Nadja RIP 3-11-2013 Forum Leader

    Tac, I think you have hit the nail dead center of the head. Somehow, I think that this may overrun the elections even better then one could hope for. ! Make sure the word gets out to all those that are not capable of thinking on their own
     
  10. DKR

    DKR Raconteur of the first stripe

    removed by poster
     
    Seawolf1090 likes this.
  11. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    Has anyone considered the obvious answer? Remember Nancy Reagan and her slogan "Just Say No!"? They can mandate all the taxes or penalties they want but if we refuse to pay them, if we stand firm and deliberately deny them the ability to collect that tax, then they are screwed. There is a precedence here, the War of Northern aggression had little, if anything to do with slavery, but had tons to do with the Merrill Tariff. We refused to pay it. It didn't work out so well but this Obama Care thing is not regional, they would have to declare war over every square inch of our nation and the only ones willing to take up arms on their behalf are those that are sucking on the Tit, not producing the milk.
     
    RightHand likes this.
  12. Seacowboys

    Seacowboys Senior Member Founding Member

    We, the People, have gotten so used to being grateful for the few crumbs of liberty that fall through the cracks while the politicians and Big Industry consume our Freedom. What a pity....sheep generally get what sheep deserve; a fleecing.
     
    ozarkgoatman likes this.
  13. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    You only pay IF you don't have health coverage AND you can afford it. That is the fine...and if you don't pay, they will take it out of your tax refund if you're stupid enough to have one...or if not, they will garnish your wages.

    If your income is less than 133 percent of the poverty line, you receive Medicaid (unless VA rejects federal Medicaid dollars for the expansion, something the Court made it easier for them to do). If your income is between 133 percent and 400 percent, you receive some level of subsidy. If you're not in these groups, you must find a plan (e.g., state exchange) or you will be fined (a penalty: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5000A)

    http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/12poverty.shtml/

    For a family of 4, 133% of the poverty level is (1.33 * 23,050) = 30,656.50. So, if you make less, you're eligible for Medicaid. From 133% to 400% (4.00 * 23,050) = 92,200, you get some type of govt. subsidy. Now...given that the govt. doesn't have ANY money of its own, where do you think it's going to get the money to pay that subsidy? Yes....taxes. Add to that our national debt is already 100% of the GDP, the amount of taxes we take in now won't cover our debt...so, again, where is this money going to come from? Inescapably, it is a tax. How much (for those that can afford it)?

    The minimum amount — per person — will be $695 once the tax is fully phased in. But it will be less to start. The minimum penalty per person will start at $95 in 2014, the first year that the law will require individuals to obtain coverage. And it will rise to $325 the following year.

    Starting in 2017, the minimum tax per person will rise each year with inflation. And for children 18 and under, the minimum per-person tax is half of that for adults.

    However, the minimum amount per family is capped at triple the per-person tax, no matter how many individuals are in the taxpayer’s household. So, for example, a couple with one child over 18 (or two children age 18 or under), and no coverage, would pay a minimum of $285 in 2014, $975 in 2015 and $2,085 in 2016. And that would be the minimum no matter how many uninsured dependents a taxpayer has.

    The tax would be more for persons with higher taxable incomes. When phased in, it will be 2.5 percent of household income that exceeds the income threshold for filing a tax return. For 2011, those thresholds were $9,500 for a single person under age 65, and $19,000 for a married person filing jointly with a spouse. So, to give a rough calculation, a couple with $100,000 of income might pay a tax of $2,025 if they choose to go without coverage.

    But the penalty can never exceed the cost of the national average premiums for the lowest-cost “bronze” plans being offered through the new insurance exchanges called for under the law. We have no way of knowing what that average rate might turn out to be in 2014, but there is reason to think it could be quite high. For example, the total cost of a basic Government Employees Health Association plan currently offered through the Federal Employee Health Benefit program (the model for the state insurance exchanges) totals $9,459 per year for a family plan, and $4,159 for individual coverage.

    483292_10150989857914356_1914348249_n.
     
  14. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

  15. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    Nadja likes this.
  16. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

  17. Jeff Brackett

    Jeff Brackett Monkey+++

  18. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    Regardless of what anyone writes about how good this is for the Commerce Clause, I find the thought of future "mandates" and "penalty taxes" being unsettling and the revisionist "rhino" supporting papers and thinkers can crawl back in their holes.

    Next Mandate: "All people must have an RFID chip inserted under their skin"". The cost of implantation shall be paid for by a new program called "Patient Protection Health ID Act" and shall be paid for through the new Health ID Administration which is funded by the new employee tax of 1.2%/employer tax of 1.2%. Companies which do not have an 95% chipping rate of employees and their immediate family shall pay a mandate 5% penalty tax on all global income until they reach the 95% compliance rate. Employees refusing chipping shall pay a mandate $200 per family member penalty tax. Said mandate penalty tax shall increase by $100/yr per family member until employee and family come into compliance.

    I call all the new analysis, "Painting a Pig" -- still stinks like shit and looks like a pig.
     
  19. Falcon15

    Falcon15 Falco Peregrinus

    A little something from one of my favorite guys to listen to, Bill Whittle:
     
  20. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    I did not know Roberts changed his decision......

     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7