The Liberal Gun Club Forum

lemur wrote: "This will go down as the day the Republic died!"

really, THIS day, not the day that santa clara county V southern pacific railroad was decided, or how about citizens united, there are a hundred more dreadful days in the history of the supreme court court alone, than this.

This is my favorite. People saying they will leave the country because of this decision, and go to... (wait for it)... CANADA!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-m ... -obamacare

Thanks to my pro-RKBA choices on Facebook, I won't be rading Facebook posts for a while.

United Healthcare is going to do stuff to me that will make me see an emergency proctologist I'm sure.

Nixon is laughing from his grave for sure. "I told you, Fuckers, do it MY way, but NooOOOoo! Dicky's an Idiot..."

Fukshot wrote:This is my favorite. People saying they will leave the country because of this decision, and go to... (wait for it)... CANADA!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-m ... -obamacare

Thanks fukshot, that made my day.

gendoikari87 wrote:

lemur wrote: "This will go down as the day the Republic died!"

really, THIS day, not the day that santa clara county V southern pacific railroad was decided, or how about citizens united, there are a hundred more dreadful days in the history of the supreme court court alone, than this.

I am thinking Buckley v Valeo. That ruling paved the way for Citizens United. It formalized the idea that political contributions were a protected act of free speech. Money is not speech, it is a mode of business transaction. It is access and exchange, but it is not speech.

yes but what paved the way for that was corporate personhood which was began with Santa clara.

Popehat is holding a contest to gather the most over the top reactions:

http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/28/in-th ... a-contest/

Your mission is to help us find the most egregious example of hysterical, shrieking outrage, or smug, gloating condescension, produced on the World Wide Web today.

[...]
More than thoughtful analysis, we want predictions of DOOM for the American republic, or a holocaust for women, minorities, the poor, and children.

But pay attention to this caveat:

For this reason, entries from Andrew Sullivan, Paul Krugman, Debbie Schlussel, and Rush Limbaugh are automatically disqualified. That would be making it easy.

AmirMortal wrote:Ok, so at my income level, my guess is that I'll be paying the "tax" because I'm probably just outside of the envelope for assistance, yet there's NO WAY that I can afford several extra thousands/yr, if not quarterly. So rather than benefiting from insurance, I've likely just incurred an extra $800 in penalties/taxes each year. I'm pissed! If this is now going to be the law, we really need to fucking regulate the insurance industry. There needs to be standard rates, with maximum fees assessed per year.

You are exactly why we now need to revisit the Public Option debate.

AmirMortal wrote:Ok, so at my income level, my guess is that I'll be paying the "tax" because I'm probably just outside of the envelope for assistance, yet there's NO WAY that I can afford several extra thousands/yr, if not quarterly. So rather than benefiting from insurance, I've likely just incurred an extra $800 in penalties/taxes each year. I'm pissed! If this is now going to be the law, we really need to fucking regulate the insurance industry. There needs to be standard rates, with maximum fees assessed per year.

Along with the mandate comes a tax credit based on a calculated "maximum premium" which is based on income.

The maximum annual premium is a percentage of your annual income. That percentage increases as your income increases with a cap at 400% of the FPR. Below the FPR up to 133% of the FPR, the percentage is 2%.

So, for example, a single person making 14 grand a year would have a maximum annual health insurance premium of $280. That's less than $24 a month.

I'm pleased that Obamacare was upheld, mainly because I was sick and tired of hearing about how it was unconstitutional and unprecedented. The idea of imposing a tax on everybody, the same tax amount, not for working or making money, but just for existing in the USA is found in the Constitution where it's been since 1789. It's called a capitation. And the precedent of reducing tax liability for selectively preferred purchases is all over the Internal Revenue Code, as Fukshot noted.

So whether your a public option supporter or an outright commie, there's reason to be cheered by the ruling in that it was a smackdown of unadulterated bullshit. Next time they'll have to put a slightly higher truth content in their bullshit.

Wurble wrote: So, for example, a single person making 14 grand a year would have a maximum annual health insurance premium of $280. That's less than $24 a month.

Do you know a place where this is explained clearly? I searched but only found something from some government agency which was about as opaque as hieroglyphics.

Wurble wrote:So, for example, a single person making 14 grand a year would have a maximum annual health insurance premium of $280. That's less than $24 a month.

Yes. It sounds reasonable when put that way. I have a friend with MS and no regular employer health care. It's good for many. The funding, however is the thing.

In much of the US $14,000 is rent. A person has to have 2 non-health-care paying jobs to live so then the insurance tax will go up too.
It's still based on income.

Rant/ On

We have some kind of stealth battleship that the Chinese laugh at. Billions wasted.
One of many of thousands of examples.

Expensive technology has got our ignorant, political, military leadership by the little round things, and are dragging them around.

I have another unoriginal idea that would work.

I'd like to take $24 of my tax money and take it from the Generals and buy the $14,000 per year person health care.

The money's already there. We are just arguing - as a nation - on how to spend it.
It's like an episode of "The Honeymooners" Just not funny..

We're equivocating about the wrong things. I don't mean the forum, I mean the nation.

Rant/off

lemur wrote:I am absolutely ecstatic that the court found that the Commerce Clause does not give government power to regulate non-action. That would be an absurd reading of the constitution. (And yet, the Commerce Clause was the primary battle horse of the Obama team. ) Ditto for Necessary and Proper.

Congress can mandate a person to engage in commerce already. Wickard permits congress to regulate a person's decision not to participate in a market. I think the court is slowly narrowing that holding, but the power exists. This is why the government relied so heavily on the Commerce Clause.

rdenny wrote:

lemur wrote:I am absolutely ecstatic that the court found that the Commerce Clause does not give government power to regulate non-action. That would be an absurd reading of the constitution. (And yet, the Commerce Clause was the primary battle horse of the Obama team. ) Ditto for Necessary and Proper.

Congress can mandate a person to engage in commerce already. Wickard permits congress to regulate a person's decision not to participate in a market. I think the court is slowly narrowing that holding, but the power exists. This is why the government relied so heavily on the Commerce Clause.

There is a significant difference between the reasoning in Wickard and what the government was arguing in the ACA case. What the opinion in the ACA case does is not narrowing any previous holding but refusing to expand the interpretation of the Commerce Clause. That's as clear as day if you take care to read Robert's opinion. If you don't, well then 2+2 = broccoli.

I look at it like this: All my life I've paid more tax because I've elected to not have children. I've never bitched about that fact. If someone bitches because their tax increases because they elect to not have health insurance, they're not going to get a lot of sympathy from me. The next thing to do would be to regulate the insurance industry by establishing a competing government insurance plan designed to make the corporations bow out of the business.

Back in the 2010 winter olympics, in the aftermath of a USA win of one of the games, who else remembers this?



All these threats to move to canada are hilarious.

Canadians like that deserve moronic conservatives escaping soshulizm by running off to Soviet Canuckistan. Maple syrup-drinking bitches. I'd rather have my guns and no unnecessary u's.

I don't understand I thought it was right wing folks that didn't want to pay taxes, but it seems there are other groups that are upset with this decision, We have to pay taxes it's what we do to support the country, we all like good roads police and fire protection some of you guys sound like republicans I don't understand ! I don't mind paying taxes if it will help others with health care, I and my wife have never made much money we raised 5 boys and payed for our health insurance for 40 years (self employed) we never had a health care plan payed for like lots of folks have or had...... Hopefully this will pave the way for medicare for all and if that was to happen taxes will go up for everyone, health care is not free and as a country it will be payed for with Tax money......Hope I didn't piss any of you off and I don't mean to insulting, but I feel this was a win for the Democrats and the poor and middle class...
I still think the president is a man that has had his hands tied for the last 2 years by a congress that has stopped him on his agenda to help middle class and the poor.. I have not been happy with all of his Ideas ! But do we really want Mitt Romney and a senate and congress full of tea party Ideas that will finish the poor and middle class off.......................................................................

Irishman, I don't know about you, but I'm already paying taxes for health insurance. Just not my own. Every check I write to the IRS has a carve out for Medicare, so senior citizens will have enough disposable income to ride around to Tea Party meetings and tell politicians and gullible media dupes how much they hate the idea that I would see some benefit out of the taxes I pay, like affordable health insurance. When I pay for them, they've earned it. If I get something back for myself and my family, it's f&cking communism. They're so full of crap it's a wonder they don't sneeze brown.

lemur wrote:

rdenny wrote:

lemur wrote:I am absolutely ecstatic that the court found that the Commerce Clause does not give government power to regulate non-action. That would be an absurd reading of the constitution. (And yet, the Commerce Clause was the primary battle horse of the Obama team. ) Ditto for Necessary and Proper.

Congress can mandate a person to engage in commerce already. Wickard permits congress to regulate a person's decision not to participate in a market. I think the court is slowly narrowing that holding, but the power exists. This is why the government relied so heavily on the Commerce Clause.

There is a significant difference between the reasoning in Wickard and what the government was arguing in the ACA case. What the opinion in the ACA case does is not narrowing any previous holding but refusing to expand the interpretation of the Commerce Clause. That's as clear as day if you take care to read Robert's opinion. If you don't, well then 2+2 = broccoli.

Wickard, if I am thinking about the right case, is about as far reaching as one can get. Roberts opinion deals that in. Been too long since I read it to remember specifics, but it was appalling to me when I read it. I think that case give latitude to regulate any industry which affects interstate commerce and allows congress to mandate any action which, in aggregate with similar actions by others, would substantially affect interstate commerce. Again, been awhile. And was having to read the opinion at work so no opportunity to review cited cases.

Regardless, precedent clearly existed to enforce mandate under the commerce clause. The reality is Roberts limited previous commerce clause jurisprudence. I think he did so justifiably as it had reached too far.

BTW, read Roberts opinion in full. Please do not assume I did not because my interpretation differs from yours. I certainly respect your right to have differing opinion from mine. Certainly constitutional and legal interpretation is not black and white.

lemur wrote:

Wurble wrote: So, for example, a single person making 14 grand a year would have a maximum annual health insurance premium of $280. That's less than $24 a month.

Do you know a place where this is explained clearly? I searched but only found something from some government agency which was about as opaque as hieroglyphics.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/7962-02.pdf

Gnigma wrote:I look at it like this: All my life I've paid more tax because I've elected to not have children. I've never bitched about that fact. If someone bitches because their tax increases because they elect to not have health insurance, they're not going to get a lot of sympathy from me. The next thing to do would be to regulate the insurance industry by establishing a competing government insurance plan designed to make the corporations bow out of the business.

This is a bloody good point. I hadn't thought of this one but I will be using it. Thanks.

AmirMortal wrote:Fyi, I was really hoping that the individual mandate had been struck down so we could implement single payer. Fuck the insurance industry... They ARE the reason that we have the most expensive, yet (on the whole) least effective medical system of any modern western society.

Don't kid yourself, striking down the individual mandate would definitely not have lead to a single payer system. If the GOP are going this apeshit over this watered down version of healthcare, imagine the outrage to single payer? No, this is a good first step. Yes, insurance companies may benefit but they will also be exposed to more competition, and won't be allowed to screw citizens over nearly as much. I see this as a great day for people like you, Amir. You will be able to have health insurance for very very little money - even if you are freelancing. And they can't deny you because you have some pre-existing condition. And for people making less than you? Its a godsend.

Wurble wrote:

lemur wrote:

Wurble wrote: So, for example, a single person making 14 grand a year would have a maximum annual health insurance premium of $280. That's less than $24 a month.

Do you know a place where this is explained clearly? I searched but only found something from some government agency which was about as opaque as hieroglyphics.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/7962-02.pdf

nice find, thanks.

I don't mind paying the extra tax, but the problem for me is that I won't likely actually see a benefit. I could be wrong, and time will tell, but as far as I know all that this bill does for me is allows me to have a pre existing condition. There is no mandate for the costs to actually be "affordable". They've still got me over a barrel in that the insurance companies still make up their prices as they go. It does make for a nice name though.

I would be happy to pay an extra 3-5 percent, if I and my family got full coverage, but as long as the for profit corporations dominate and control the costs, that is very unlikely. They can't turn you down for coverage anymore, but they can charge you as much as they please.