The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I'd have been just as happy with a bunch of Romneycare clones popping up at the state level, too, though. I don't see why the blue states should be stuck with a broken system just because the red states don't want it (and conversely, if the red states want to keep their broken system, I don't see why they should have to get something better).

But what about blue people living in red states, and red people living in blue states being "stuck" with a system they don't like?

I guess my problem with that whole framing is that it makes it sound like there's some moral equivalency at work between red & blue people's preferences. Blue people stuck in red states are upset that some people can't afford the treatment they need, while red people stuck in blue states mostly are just bellyaching because they think someone got helped by a doctor, and that maybe some of their precious dollars were used to commit that horrifying act of decency.

Hence the video.

I'd be fine with a federalist approach if what we were talking about was differing ideas of how to achieve universal coverage at a basic quality level (and incidentally, the ACA allows for states to do their own thing as long as it covers as many people as well as ACA's system would). Instead we seem to have differing ideas about what our moral obligations to our fellow citizens are: keeping taxes low, or making sure everyone can afford the healthcare they need?

>> ^KnivesOut:

@ReverendTed You're incorrect about what happens in 2014. Here's a good overview of what the mandate actually means: http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2012/06/a
ffordable_care_acts_mandate_d.html
Thanks for the link, KO. That's an excellent synopsis of the individual mandate provisions that I hadn't seen or read elsewhere.



That said, I'm not convinced it makes my statement incorrect.
My employees are not American Indians, prisoners, Old Order Amish, covered by Medicare\Medicaid or undocumented immigrants. They will be required to purchase insurance or pay the penalty tax.
Depending on their salary, even with taxpayer subsidies they will be responsible for devoting (probably) 6.3% or 9.5% of their income to insurance, or be taxed at or around 1%-2.5% of their income.
As I mentioned, we've investigated state-subsidized policies before (which weren't terrible, but weren't "Cadillac" policies by any stretch) and my employees determined it wasn't feasible for them.

One provision I don't understand is the exclusion of "those who earn so little that health insurance premiums, after federal subsidies and employer contributions, would total more than 8 percent of their income." How is it determined that premiums would total more than 8% of income? Doesn't that depend on the type of policy?

(Yes, I appreciate that my comments come across as biased against ACA. I'll admit that I am skeptical and that it runs counter to my personal ideology, but I am genuinely interested in learning more about what it means from a practical standpoint.)

@renatojj the single provider system you're thinking isn't in the current plan (as much as we would of liked to have single-payer, or even a public option, those things were removed.)

You don't care though, because you're just regurgitating some nonsense that you read online or heard from some right-wing propaganda. The actual parameters of the ACA are not what you're describing at all.

I'll throw this out there since The Sift tends to have some pretty insightful folks on it, and I'm trying to get a better perspective on this issue.

I'm a small business owner. We're a new business, and we're growing. Things are still pretty lean.
I would love to be able to provide health insurance coverage for my employees that aren't covered through their spouses. I hate seeing them avoid going to the doctor because they don't think they can afford it, or avoiding prescriptions because they're too expensive. It's not good for them, and it isn't good for our business if they're not healthy.
I've looked into group health insurance, including a couple of state-subsidized plans that pay half of the premium for eligible employees. I can't afford to pay the entire premiums on those, and even half would be a stretch, and my employees can't (or don't think they can) afford to pay even half themselves.
They don't have health insurance because they can't afford a policy that's worth having.

The way I've understood the ACA is that, come 2014, they'll have no choice but to buy a policy they haven't been able to afford, or buy a limited-benefits or high-deductible plan that isn't of any practical use to them to avoid paying a tax for not having insurance.
(But there's no penalty for not paying the tax?)

Is there more to the ACA that gives employees like mine (and employers like me) better options?

Dude, they're not gonna hear repeated challenges to the same law. It's over. Go cry yourself to sleep if you have to, but it's time to accept reality.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I can admit when I'm wrong, can you? It's not the same case. This case today was about the constitutionality of Obamacare as a whole, and was not about the contraceptive mandate.
>> ^heropsycho:
Do you really think the SCOTUS is going to keep hearing the same case over and over again?
LOL, dude, it's over.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/contracept
ion-mandate-to-bring-obamacare-back-into-court/article/2500873
@KnivesOut too
>> ^heropsycho:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Besides the fact you said it would get struck down, and it totally didn't, the other interesting thing is the dissenting opinion doesn't mention the 1st Amendment, the establishment clause, or freedom of religion. So even had it been struck down, that's not why.
So, basically, you don't know jack crap about the ACA, the Supreme Court, what the establishment clause is, nor how to apply it. Might want to think next time before spouting this crap, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

I can admit when I'm wrong, can you? It's not the same case. This case today was about the constitutionality of Obamacare as a whole, and was not about the contraceptive mandate.

>> ^heropsycho:

Do you really think the SCOTUS is going to keep hearing the same case over and over again?
LOL, dude, it's over.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/contracept
ion-mandate-to-bring-obamacare-back-into-court/article/2500873
@KnivesOut too
>> ^heropsycho:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Besides the fact you said it would get struck down, and it totally didn't, the other interesting thing is the dissenting opinion doesn't mention the 1st Amendment, the establishment clause, or freedom of religion. So even had it been struck down, that's not why.
So, basically, you don't know jack crap about the ACA, the Supreme Court, what the establishment clause is, nor how to apply it. Might want to think next time before spouting this crap, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

Do you really think the SCOTUS is going to keep hearing the same case over and over again?

LOL, dude, it's over.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/contracept
ion-mandate-to-bring-obamacare-back-into-court/article/2500873
@KnivesOut too
>> ^heropsycho:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Besides the fact you said it would get struck down, and it totally didn't, the other interesting thing is the dissenting opinion doesn't mention the 1st Amendment, the establishment clause, or freedom of religion. So even had it been struck down, that's not why.
So, basically, you don't know jack crap about the ACA, the Supreme Court, what the establishment clause is, nor how to apply it. Might want to think next time before spouting this crap, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

http://washingtonexaminer.com/contraception-mandate-to-bring-obamacare-back-into-court/article/2500873

@KnivesOut too

>> ^heropsycho:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
Besides the fact you said it would get struck down, and it totally didn't, the other interesting thing is the dissenting opinion doesn't mention the 1st Amendment, the establishment clause, or freedom of religion. So even had it been struck down, that's not why.
So, basically, you don't know jack crap about the ACA, the Supreme Court, what the establishment clause is, nor how to apply it. Might want to think next time before spouting this crap, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Besides the fact you said it would get struck down, and it totally didn't, the other interesting thing is the dissenting opinion doesn't mention the 1st Amendment, the establishment clause, or freedom of religion. So even had it been struck down, that's not why.

So, basically, you don't know jack crap about the ACA, the Supreme Court, what the establishment clause is, nor how to apply it. Might want to think next time before spouting this crap, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

>> ^shinyblurry:

There's nothing unconstitutional about that aspect of the bill. Regulation of health care insurance would fall under regulation of interstate commerce. It's not a violation of the 1st amendment. There's nothing forcing an orthodox catholic to use contraception. Again, birth control can be used for reasons utterly and completely unrelated to preventing pregnancy. It is still 100% completely within an individual's rights to use or not use birth control.
Did you watch the video and read the commentary? If you have then you should have understood that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which will take precedence. It will be thrown out in court.
>> ^heropsycho:

>> ^quantumushroom:

The deliberate Uncertainty created by this corrupt regime is fking everything up. There's two trillion dollars in the hands of the people that is parked (you read that right, two TRILLION) waiting for two events: the Supreme Court's decision on obamacare and the election.

For the sake of argument, let's say your basic point is right and uncertainty about government is the only reason that $2 trillion is "parked," and the people who actually control what's done with that money bear zero responsibility for the damage their choices are wreaking on the economy.

Even if I, for the sake of argument only, stipulate all that as true, why does only Obama bear responsibility for that uncertainty? Using your own logic, if Republicans put the well-being of the country before their own ambition, they would restore certainty by a) dropping their suit against the ACA, and b) letting Obama run unopposed in the 2012 election.

Certainly that would restore "certainty" to the markets.

Now, if what you really meant was that the so-called "job creators" are intentionally fucking over the economy in order to a) put pressure on the SCOTUS to rule against the ACA, and b) try to get a Republican into the White House, why is Obama the villain in your story? Clearly if that's the case, then these people formerly known as job creators are actually terrorists who deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
>> ^quantumushroom:
It's certainly true that certain companies legally pay no taxes, and they grease the palms of BOTH parties. But why do these companies (as well as everyone else) NEED lobbyists? Because the government is too big and too powerful.

Right, if it weren't for the government, corporations would be free to collect their own taxes from people, and make their own laws directly without any need to go through the pretense of democratic process.

You know, Utopia!

Again, even if I accept your basic premise, your logic is still flawed. If I bribe a bank security guard to look the other way while I rob his bank, the right response to that is to say "that bank should be more careful about who it hires" not "the entire practice of banking should be abolished."

Same for you and government -- if you don't like corporations buying influence in our government, you should be trying to find a way to limit their opportunities to do so (like campaign finance reform), or voting for people who are a lot less cozy with business than the people you like to vote for.

As for "make government smaller," that's no solution. All that does is create a power vacuum, one corporations step in to fill themselves. It doesn't level the playing field, it tilts it even more towards the people who already run things now.

If you're interested in getting out from under the thumb of people with too much power, you need to focus your sights on trying to reduce income and wealth disparity, and help try to return us to a more egalitarian society, rather than going out and trying to help the rich and powerful fuck us all over.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Boise_Lib.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by critical_d.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by vaporlock.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by geo321.