Basically, the Senate can now raise taxes with a simple 51 vote majority. The country has just been fundamentally changed.
obama invoking executive privledge in fast and furious and then him simply not enforcing immigration law. its a strange new world we live in. up is down, down is up.
Remember when Bush was a dictator for going to Congress and the UN to authorize action against Iraq? Bush should have just bypassed that entire process, since the Constitution no longer matters.
well, he better change the election rules quick (let illegals vote or something). he's going down hard in November otherwise.
Well, since it's a tax, you don't need 60 Senate votes to end Obamacare; can be done with as few as 51 votes or GOP veep. Maybe just Pres. Romney.
You seem confused, and further you don't seem to understand that American workers ask for very obnoxious stuff compared to other countries. This is a false dilemma. The choices are very simple, you have a competitive marketplace where goods are at their cheapest and most efficient price. Or you have overpaid low-skilled American workers. Getting most kinds of Visas are complicated and very Socialist. Most Americans want free ice cream. Populism is not the solution to our problems.
As opposed to Romney not invoking these new powers? This team red thing you're doing isn't going to help the US. This is one of the nice side-effects.
Just saying what's going to happen here. Romney will run successfully against Obama's unprecedented expansion of government, while at the same time not really fixing the economy.
1990s Bill Clinton is more Republican than Romney, the guy flat out scares me. I'd rather have Obama be President again and get all the blame.
They can opt out of the Medicaid expansion. The one thing the Supreme Court overturned was the federal penalty of taking away all Medicaid funding from states that opted out of the Medicaid expansion. The court ruled that it should be a free choice for states as to how they handle Medicaid and the penalty took away that choice. The rest of the bill, as I understand it, is not subject to opt-out.
I keep thinking that the name is a misnomer. No part of health care (as I understand, even after that excellent post) got more affordable...an MRI is still $3k, my dad's post-cancer medication is still the same cost, one night in the ER still costs the same... When will people realize that this is "helping" people get insured by taxing/mandating the heck out of others? Why mandate insurance (or "tax" it, if that's more constitutionally correct)? Why not make it more affordable, removing price gouging, etc.? Why would any supporter think it's ok to soak taxpayers with the ridiculous costs associated with post-cancer care instead of reducing the amount of gouging that providers/medicine manufacturers can get away with? Medicare and Medicaid is over $700B overrun this year, without the ObamaCare expansion. The interest on that debt is paid by taxpayers, who are also paying for the debt expanding the program, as well as the budgeted program. These two reasons, imho, are two reasons why many of the supporters (including the President) will be voted out this year. And I have no doubt that Romney would make good his promise to make the first thing he does to repeal PPACA. Unlike, say, closing Gitmo.
I wonder about this bill. More taxes across the board, higher costs to insurance companies, more taxes to insurance companies and a near inability to raise premiums to insurance companies. I mean, I get the fact Obama/Pelosi/Reid want to eliminate insurance companies, but this is a fairly punitive way to do so. My prediction- within 90%+ of all health care in this country will be via the national health care plan, dramatic increase in taxes, fraud on an unprecedented scale and the continued decline of the middle class.
That is how insurance works already. You always pay and when someone goes wrong, you get money from the big pool. Because if they didn't mandate healthcare, it wouldn't be fair to include the no denial of patients with preconditions. it was proposed by the republicans years ago, and is quite the compromise really. I believe they tried to do some of these things. Like there was a change to the ability to sue doctors for malpractice. Because right now, when someone goes to the ER and doesn't have insurance, and they rack up a 15000$ bill, and can't pay for it. Do you know who ALREADY fronts the bill? Everyone else with healthcare already. the hospitals eat that cost and move the cost onto their paying customers.
Most of the law hasn't gone into effect yet, so what things cost today isn't really related to the ACA. From my understanding, there are regulations on what insurance companies can charge and the profits they can take, but those provisions don't go into effect until 2013/2014. One detail that I recall is that a minimum of 80% of the money that insurance companies take in must go to providing health care, for example.
