Capitol Hill Blue Forums Hot Topics & Breaking News News Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid'

And you point is ...... IS ?

Or do posit the economic success of the Koch brothers enabling them to contribute to various think tanks and institutions supportive of a conservative viewpoint is somehow reprehensible ? Then you should be as equally outraged by the Joyce Foundation's support of our President to name but one ! >Mech

Justice Ginsberg blew that argument out of the water. She stated that a tax is meant to raise revenues and if successful, this law wouldn't raise any revenue.

as usual you failed to understand the criticism (paranoia of conservatives i suspect)

the point is that any justice who would participate in any confab of any political persuasion would be ethically compromised

as usual you would understand the conservative misrepresentation of HR 3950

it is not a one size law ... it is a one program for all

there are several insurance packages outlined which depend on cost and coverage ... in other words there is a base package which addresses your concerns that the young would not have anything but catastrophic coverage ... thus we would have high deducts but some protection from catastrophic health care ... other packages outlined increase in cost and of course the commensurate changes in coverage, including a cadillac package on the high end

well gee ... this is precisely how all insurance of every kind works ... glad you understand that much

you need to read the law first before making such blatantly inaccurate claims

the law is specific that whereas a panel of doctors will design the most cost effective health care methodologies, every patient has the option to reject the most cost effective treatment in favor of any chosen treatment

no ... it would appear she was and is incorrect

or it could be she is the idiot that people recognize her as

there are legitimate criticisms of HR 3950 but you have mentioned none of them

doesn't sound right

$695 fine per individual and $2000 per employee if employer has over 50 employees and fails to comply with certain conditions ... sounds like raising money

suppose Congress enacts a law which taxes cigarettes bought and no one buys cigarettes ... was it a tax if no one bought any, i.e. no revenue raised

i suspect the issues involved are a little more complicated than latching onto a superficial comment from a justice

NYT article

I found the reader discussion on this article to be quite insightful, exposing many ancillary topics that would come under the possible (different) decisions that will be rendered in June.

Some unintended results that will most certainly come no matter how the court decides.

I am inclined to think that the sole provider option may become a possibility by 2014, given the probable meltdown of whatever interim solution might be hammered out.

Of course that's just my opinion.

One more thing... A guess about the actual public understanding of the 2700 page Affordable Care Act.

That not one person in a thousand would be able to summarize the major aspects of the plan, or explain what changes are planned to take place, and when.

The single most important point of concern in every poll, and yet the public is almost completely ignorant of even the most basic points.

Healthcare.gov

How Collapse of Health Care Law Could Help Democrats

Another interesting take. Two things stood out for me: one is that a negative ruling could stimulate a Democratic backlash similar to the TEAP backlash (except there are a lot more Democrats than there were TEAPers); the other is that taxing to provide healthcare is being affirmed.

In my opinion, the biggest flaw in the ACA is the bastardizing of the system due to retaining the profit motivated private insurance companies. What place do Vampires have in healthcare, after all? I don't think that bloodsucking is an approved medical practice anymore.

please show me where the joyce foundation has undue influence in the democratic party. please show me where the joyce foundation has worked to undermine the republican party's efforts, as has the koch brothers worked to undermine the democratic party. please show me where the joyce foundation has worked to undermine checks and balances that attempt to protect the average citizen (the 99, perhaps). please, please, please. if you're going to compare apples to oranges, the least you could do is provide us with an argument worth debating. but alas, i don't think you're able.

Sounds like she really, really needs ACA: Down near the poverty line, it supplies tax credits to limit your cost for a policy to 3% of your AGI. If she is sole earner and has a few kids, with $1800/month, her policy would cost her $54/month!

All of the people crying poor-mouth are comparing their low income to the amount they would "be required to pay" pre-ACA for a policy. That comparison is scary, but also wildly inaccurate! BTW: You still get those tax credits to help buy your policy, even if they are more than your tax liability.