Supreme Court strips Romney of favorite argument

So how does Mitt Romney, the architect of RomneyCare, attack ObamaCare from this point forward?

Until now, Romney has claimed that the individual mandate is fine as policy when implemented at the state level. In fact, he has said repeatedly that he believes he did the right thing as governor of Massachusetts.

In a GOP debate in January, for example, Romney defended his plan on its merits, arguing that “everyone has a requirement to either buy it or pay the state for the cost of providing them free care. Because the idea of people getting something for free when they could afford to care for themselves is something that we decided in our state was not a good idea.”

However, while Romney argued that such an approach was right for Massachusetts, he also argued that it would be unconstitutional to implement it at the federal level. That was his get-out-of-jail card; that was the core of the distinction that he attempted to draw between RomneyCare and ObamaCare:

What was good policy at the state level was unconstitutional at the federal level.

Except that as we now know, it’s not. Romney’s argument has been rendered null and void by today’s Supreme Court decision upholding the mandate and the tax penalty used to enforce it.

Romney could, I suppose, try to seize upon the court’s description of the penalty as a tax to try to explain how his plan was different. U.S. Sen. Lindsay Thomas, in an appearance on Fox News this afternoon, was already pitching that line, claiming that “the issue is no longer about health care; it’s about taxes.”

Unfortunately for that line of argument, the tax penalty levied under RomneyCare on those who refuse to buy health insurance differs from that under ObamaCare only by degree, and not in a way friendly to Romney. You see, the maximum tax penalty in RomneyCare, at $1,212, is considerably higher than the maximum of $695 under ObamaCare.

Of course, none of this means that Romney won’t keep attacking the federal plan so clearly modeled after his own strategy. It just means that he won’t be able to do so credibly or logically.

– Jay Bookman

1,024 comments Add your comment

Tommy Maddox

June 28th, 2012
3:16 pm

Easy – it’s a tax on everyone.

Butch Cassidy

June 28th, 2012
3:16 pm

Jay – “It just means that he won’t be able to do so credibly or logically.”

Yeah, not sure that logic or credibity is high on the list of his supporters.

Skip Caray

June 28th, 2012
3:19 pm

JOSEPH WINS! JOSEPH WINS! JOSEPH WINS!

Welcome to the Occupation

June 28th, 2012
3:20 pm

Limbaugh all praise for the Heritage Foundation today for its opposition to health care law — the one they wrote.

Jay

June 28th, 2012
3:22 pm

And yes, it’s a tax. It’s a tax levied ONLY on those who attempt to free ride on the system, knowing that if they’re in a car wreck, etc., they’ll get health care anyway.

It is, in other words, a tax only on those who refuse to pay their own way. A tax on the moochers, not on those who act responsibly. It is, you might say, a tax on stupidity, in the hope that by taxing it you get less of it.

It is a mark of the mindless antipathy to all things Obama that conservatives would claim to be appalled by such a tax, and would build their 2012 campaign around an effort to free the moochers from any obligation to contribute to their own care.

larry

June 28th, 2012
3:23 pm

It just means that he won’t be able to do so credibly or logically.

It means he’s a hypocrite. Pure and simple.

And I might add, its been a bad week for the Repubs. Their model immigration law was struck down, the Presidents ACA was upheld and they are fixing to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress for something that didnt happen ( i. e, the Fortune article) and they are going to look foolish doing it. Which hasnt stopped them before.

Midori

June 28th, 2012
3:24 pm

Paying taxes is a necessity for living in a civilized society.

Midori

June 28th, 2012
3:25 pm

and they are going to look foolish doing it. Which hasnt stopped them before.

word, Larry.

stands for decibels

June 28th, 2012
3:25 pm

Civilized people don’t cry about paying taxes.

Arnold

June 28th, 2012
3:25 pm

The decision reminds me of the Supreme Court election of George Bush. The only difference is with Bush thousands were killed or maimed. With Obama, thousands will live. Also, at less financial cost.

Butch Cassidy

June 28th, 2012
3:26 pm

Well, that would explain the look on his face when he gave his address earlier today. I’ve seen that same look on guys who just got kicked in the balls. :)

Peadawg

June 28th, 2012
3:26 pm

“So how does Mitt Romney, the architect of RomneyCare, attack ObamaCare from this point forward?”

Easy. He attacks it by calling out Obama for his 2009 comments saying it’s not a tax.

“It is, in other words, a tax only on those who refuse to pay their own way. A tax on the moochers, not on those who act responsibly.”

You really think Romney is going to include that in his ads?

Adam

June 28th, 2012
3:27 pm

Jay: Maybe you can help me because I don’t have the full background to explain why, but I am pretty sure a moocher can’t mooch, then get healthcare insurance immediately when they need it, then get back off and mooch again, etc. Is that legal and more importantly, is it even practical?

Tommy Maddox

June 28th, 2012
3:27 pm

“…conservatives would claim to be appalled by such a tax” when we were told time and time and time again that it was not a tax.

We were told that it was not a tax, correct?

Lord Help Us

June 28th, 2012
3:27 pm

Hasn’t the GOP been decrying the number of moochers that do not pay any taxes?

They should be thrilled!!

Tax the moochers!

stands for decibels

June 28th, 2012
3:28 pm

Intelligent people don’t look at our nation’s balance sheet and declare “we’re taxed enough already.”

Jay

June 28th, 2012
3:28 pm

“You really think Romney is going to include that in his ads?”

No, of course not. I do believe that Obama will do so, however. And he will probably cite a few of Romney’s own statements to that effect.

Brosephus™

June 28th, 2012
3:28 pm

It is a mark of the mindless antipathy to all things Obama that conservatives would claim to be appalled by such a tax, and would build their 2012 campaign around an effort to free the moochers from any obligation to contribute to their own care.

Not really. You really didn’t read the opinion on Knox V SEIU did you? Mooching is ok when the mooching is something that some conservatives agree with. One has the right to gain all the benefits gained by collective bargaining without having to pay the union dues to the union that achieved those benefits for you. Mooching is becoming the new American way.

Lord Help Us

June 28th, 2012
3:30 pm

Pea, are you mad at Romney for lying to you and telling you Obamacare was unconstitutional?

Peadawg

June 28th, 2012
3:31 pm

” I do believe that Obama will do so, however.”

He needs to do it and do it quickly. Hannity, Rush, et al will be absolutely flooding the airwaves w/ his 2009 quote about it not being a tax. Republican leaders are a lot better about getting the word out to the public than the Democrats are.

Brosephus™

June 28th, 2012
3:32 pm

Peadawg @ 3:31

Really begs the question about which party’s followers are herded like sheep, huh?

Jefferson

June 28th, 2012
3:33 pm

Romney will end up looking like Bill Buckner … between his legs.

Mighty Righty

June 28th, 2012
3:33 pm

Obama can’t pretend anymore. He has been deflecting attention from his record with the help of his storm troopers for the last six months. But there it is. The biggest screw up in american history, Obama Care which will destroy the finest medical system in the world by the stroke of Obama’s pen. Obama designed it, he promoted it, he twisted arms to get his party to pass it with out one single Republican vote. The plan was lied about from day one as a health care reduction plan when the truth is it was a socialist power grab. Since its inception, though less than fully implemented it has already caused a huge increase in medical cost Obamacare is Social Security and Medicare and Welefare on steroids. The cost of this program ultimately will cause everyones taxes to double just to pay for Obama Care. When it does, those of you cheering on the sidelines will find some way to blame the cost on anything but Obama Care. Maybe even Bush.

Aquagirl

June 28th, 2012
3:34 pm

that would explain the look on his face when he gave his address earlier today. I’ve seen that same look on guys who just got kicked in the balls.

Guess that magic underwear doesn’t work for everything.

They BOTH suck

June 28th, 2012
3:34 pm

Bro @ 3:32

Yes that question is begging for sure

Peadawg

June 28th, 2012
3:35 pm

“Pea, are you mad at Romney for lying to you and telling you Obamacare was unconstitutional?”

I guess just as mad as I’d be at Obama for saying is WAS constitutional if the SCOTUS overturned it. I.E. no I don’t believe he exactly lied.

Now if Romney, for whatever reason, were to keep saying it’s unconstitutional even after the SCOTUS decision…I’d probably laugh. But not really be mad.

Jay

June 28th, 2012
3:35 pm

And Tommy, if you want to get technical, Justice Roberts did not call it a tax. He wrote that it was just barely possible to construe it as a tax, and if it is possible to construe it as a tax, judicial restraint requires that they do so in order to save the law.

Here’s the Roberts’ statement point blank:

“… the statute reads more naturally as a command to buy insurance than as a tax, and I would uphold it as a command if the Constitution allowed it. It is only because the Commerce Clause does not authorize such a command that it is necessary to reach the taxing power question. And it is only because we have a duty to construe a statute to save it, if fairly possible, that §5000A can be inter- preted as a tax.”

In other words, it is a tax only in the most technical legal sense, but that technical legal sense is enough to make it constitutional.

Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!

June 28th, 2012
3:35 pm

Jay

June 28th, 2012
3:22 pm

Jay,
Tell that to Joseph…PLeeezee!!

:lol:

Lord Help Us

June 28th, 2012
3:35 pm

‘ The cost of this program ultimately will cause everyones taxes to double just to pay for Obama Care’

Whewwww! Somebody light a match…that one came from a smelly place…

They BOTH suck

June 28th, 2012
3:36 pm

Mighty Righty

Any new post from those saying you are “morally obliged to support Obama”?

I have been checking for you. Haven’t seen any

SoGaVet

June 28th, 2012
3:36 pm

But, but, but….Huge, unbelievable day for all of US! The Cons won’t come around, but they really are neutered!

Jay

June 28th, 2012
3:37 pm

Normal, telling Joseph something has no effect whatsoever. He comes equipped with a deflector shield that allows no fact to penetrate. You know that.

Lord Help Us

June 28th, 2012
3:37 pm

‘I guess just as mad as I’d be at Obama for saying is WAS constitutional if the SCOTUS overturned it. I.E. no I don’t believe he exactly lied.’

Well, therein lies the gray area…for both…

Midori

June 28th, 2012
3:37 pm

Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!

June 28th, 2012
3:37 pm

Geez, y’all are such sore losers… give it a rest….Man, what whiny baby’s… :)

Welcome to the Occupation

June 28th, 2012
3:38 pm

It is a mark of the mindless antipathy to all things Obama that ..

That’s the liberal line all right, but I don’t buy it. If a Hillary Clinton were in exactly the same position as Obama, the onslaught by the right would have been just as ferocious.

No, the reason for the antagonism has to do with an ideological offensive brought on by the vacuum created by the crisis of neoliberal capitalism at this post-financial crash moment.

Jefferson

June 28th, 2012
3:39 pm

Midori, she just told him to keep the chair warm, she may be back.

Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!

June 28th, 2012
3:39 pm

Jay

June 28th, 2012
3:37 pm

True, that…but shaking my head and chuckling…

Road Scholar

June 28th, 2012
3:39 pm

An impartial person or group needs to tell what the legislation really does/doesn’t do. Up to today, President Obama’s message/explanation has been poor. The Repubs (the parents that gave birth to the legislation, on the other hand, have distorted most provisions just to thwart Obama.

Romney’s message tody (void the legislation and then craft a bill/changes is totally unacceptable. What will be kept? Added? And just how many think that this will be done and approved quickly? Just look at all the progress the Repubs have made on all fronts. Immigration? Health care? Need I say more!

AngryRedMarsWoman

June 28th, 2012
3:40 pm

“he maximum of $695 under ObamaCare”

Really? The way I read it the $695 is the minimum penalty/tax. What I read indicated that there is a different calculation when a certain percentage of the taxpayer’s household income that exceeds the applicable threshold for filing a tax return is greater than the amounts listed for the taxable year (1 percent of the excess amount in 2014, 2.0 percent of the excess in 2015, and 2.5 percent in 2016 or later). The example used in the SCOTUS case was: For example, where a taxpayer’s household income (minus the amount of the applicable threshold for filing a tax return) is $50,000, the shared responsibility payment amount per year would be, at a minimum, $500 for 2014, $1,000 for 2015, and $1,250 for 2016 or later. Can you point me to where in the law it says that the $695 is the maximum penalty/tax?

Lord Help Us

June 28th, 2012
3:40 pm

Well, raise my rent…the DJIA is making a late session surge.

Doggone/GA

June 28th, 2012
3:40 pm

“One has the right to gain all the benefits gained by collective bargaining without having to pay the union dues to the union that achieved those benefits for you. Mooching is becoming the new American way”

But the SEIU decision wasn’t about dues or collective bargaining. It was about non-dues fees assessed on both members and non-members alike to pay for political activities. And some of the non-members sued because they didn’t want to be automatically assessed for fees to pay for activities they didn’t agree with.

SheeshLouise

June 28th, 2012
3:40 pm

So “Peadawg” readily ACKNOWLEDGES that we are all destined to be inundated by Bull— simply FOR THE PURPOSE of being INUNDATED WITH BULL—-!!!???? No real merits, no real logic, JUST angry, spiteful, “conservative” BULL—-! Pitiful.

So much for the pre-pre-prepared talking point about the “first 3 1/2 years of presidency wasted on a failed policy”. Maybe next time.

Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!

June 28th, 2012
3:41 pm

Midori

June 28th, 2012
3:37 pm

Boehner looks like someone stole his kitten… :lol:

Peadawg

June 28th, 2012
3:41 pm

“Really begs the question about which party’s followers are herded like sheep, huh?”

True dat

Peadawg

June 28th, 2012
3:44 pm

I don’t think the $695 maximum is 100% accurate, Jay.

Mighty Righty

June 28th, 2012
3:45 pm

Twenty one tax increases and new taxes being hidden by looney proponents. A few are penalties on people who refuse to participate but most are not. For example, one is a “new” tax on medical devices, ie artificial limbs, heart monitors, etc. Now isn’t that nice?

The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health-care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers, and an excise tax on medical device manufacturers.

“This is a clear violation of the president’s pledge to avoid tax hikes on low- and middle-income taxpayers,” said a statement from the panel, which is chaired by Rep. Dave Camp, Michigan Republican.

Obama=Liar,Liar, pants on fire.

Tommy Maddox

June 28th, 2012
3:47 pm

Well Jay @ 3:35, if it was not a tax, then the Act would have failed as Justice Roberts would have ruled differently. I would have preferred that it not be a tax but oh well.

I just think it will again awaken that sleeping giant that showed up in 2010.

Jefferson

June 28th, 2012
3:47 pm

End of Dec, the Bush/Obama tax cut to expire.

Road Scholar

June 28th, 2012
3:47 pm

Midori: With a face like that , you’d think that Boehmer was the one that ate the chili dogs from the Varsity!

stands for decibels

June 28th, 2012
3:49 pm

I know I’m stealing this from Rachel Maddow, but isn’t scheduling a contempt vote, designed to attract attention to their stupid F&F fishing expedition, for *today* of all days…

yet another bit of evidence that Speaker Boehner is Bad At His Job®?

Jefferson

June 28th, 2012
3:49 pm

The independents are the only sleeping giant out there Tom, the right has less than the left.

Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)

June 28th, 2012
3:49 pm

the maximum tax penalty in RomneyCare, at $1,212, is considerably higher than the maximum of $695 under ObamaCare

oh, snap!

Steve

June 28th, 2012
3:49 pm

I love the people claiming they will move to Canada, or Rush saying he’d move to Costa Rica – both countries with REAL socialized medicine. We still have private insurance companies.

Jay

June 28th, 2012
3:49 pm

“that sleeping giant”

yeah Tommy, I heard the Fox blonde repeat that phrase over and over and over. I see it has had its desired effect.

Jack

June 28th, 2012
3:50 pm

Maybe we’ll have a moocher-tax repository. Then all moocher claims can be paid from those funds.

stands for decibels

June 28th, 2012
3:50 pm

I heard the Fox blonde

You don’t leave it muted?

Much more pleasant that way.

Aquagirl

June 28th, 2012
3:51 pm

Obama=Liar,Liar, pants on fire.

I know this loss reminds some cons of your humiliation on the playground in third grade, but do you have to be so blatant about your flashbacks?

This SCOTUS ruling isn’t personal, try to suck it up and act like adults fer chrissakes. I’m embarrassed for some of y’all.

stands for decibels

June 28th, 2012
3:51 pm

I love the people claiming they will move to Canada, or Rush saying he’d move to Costa Rica

Believe Boortz was playing the “Texas needs to secede so’s I can move there” card today.

super credible stuff, that.

Recon 0311 2533

June 28th, 2012
3:52 pm

“And yes, it’s a tax. It’s a tax levied ONLY on those who attempt to free ride on the system, knowing that if they’re in a car wreck, etc., they’ll get health care anyway.”

When the SCOTUS ruling struck down the state mandate it means that those states who choose to opt out of expanding their Medicaid rolls will hand back to the Fed the responsibility for covering the additional exchange costs for the increased number of those considered poor. Guess who’ll pay that additional cost? Yes correct, the taxpayers. This will be a huge tax increase on the middle class. Romney and the Republicans have been served up a huge hot button campaign issue or rather AHA issues that Obama will have to defend.

ty webb

June 28th, 2012
3:52 pm

What, no mea culpa about what a dark ,shadowy, partisan body the Supreme court is? Guess you didn’t men that in a “technical” sense.

Adam

June 28th, 2012
3:52 pm

Does everyone finally realize I was right, and that you DON’T have to pay the tax, and they can’t come after you for it? Or do I need to provide proof.

By the way, you also realize there are very few situations in which the average person would even have the penalty applied to them, right?

Tommy Maddox

June 28th, 2012
3:52 pm

Sorry Jay – I’ve been at my office today and missed the blondage broadcasts.

getalife

June 28th, 2012
3:52 pm

issa playing politics with the death of Agent Brian Terry on the house floor is a disgusting spectacle.

He should resign.

Incompetent.

Torsten

June 28th, 2012
3:52 pm

Sorry Books,

The SCOTUS misruling does nothing but help Romney.

You see, no matter your politics, the reality is Obamacare remains comfortably unpopular among a comfortable majority of Americans. A plurality of this majority is the same group that made up what wasn’t and isn’t but was considered a monolith: the tea party (movement).

After its cornerstone role in 2010, any full belly victory then delivered is now gone. The fervor will return and that can only help Mitt Romney. The reality is that Obama has given us:

–record deficits, $1T per year, each record after record
–record debt
–record stimuls (a tax)
–Obamacare (now defined as a tax by Justice Roberts’ misruling)

No matter how you cut it, all of this was delivered in his first two years in office, with Democrat congressional control, without bipartisanship efforts, and now saved by…… bom, bom, bom…..one of the three bottomdwellers of public opinion: the court system. (Politicians and media members being the other two.)

So, well, I’m thrilled because now, Booksie, it’s not Romney’s favorite argument stripped away, it’s Obama’s: we’re being screwed by the system. Had Obamacare been overturned, the outcry would’ve been over the injustice of denying altruism and the solution would be to re-elect Obama so he can see it through again. Now the outrcy is over the government being sweeping and intrusive and powerhungry. Well, there’s one guy who has not spent his life in government and his name is not Obama.

TaxPayer

June 28th, 2012
3:52 pm

It’s… it’s like the Republican party’s Samson got held down and had his hair cut. Oh, the irony.

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

June 28th, 2012
3:52 pm

yeah Tommy, I heard the Fox blonde repeat that phrase over and over and over. I see it has had its desired effect.

Bears repeating: Really begs the question about which party’s followers are herded like sheep, huh?

Adam

June 28th, 2012
3:52 pm

yet another bit of evidence that Speaker Boehner is Bad At His Job®?

YESSSS! I’ve been thinking that all day!

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 28th, 2012
3:53 pm

Okay boys and girls … say it with me, now …

HE WAS FOR IT BEFORE HE WAS AGAINST IT – as he is with so many other issues

(and repeat it daily between now and November)

Paul

June 28th, 2012
3:53 pm

“It just means that he won’t be able to do so credibly or logically.”

Question is, will the Republican base understand? Not that they’d care, anyway. It’s just another tag line to latch onto to vent their anger at All Things Obama.

Hopefully, swing voters will understand and will understand flailing when they see it.

Zebra

June 28th, 2012
3:54 pm

@Mighty Righty
“which will destroy the finest medical system in the world ”

except for the 36 systems which get better outcomes and arerated higher, right? What a tool!

Jefferson

June 28th, 2012
3:54 pm

Its easy to defend helping Americans instead of only helping RICH Americans and their corporate raiders.

Butch Cassidy

June 28th, 2012
3:54 pm

Here, Obamacare broken down so a 5 year old can understand it:

Non-partisan breakdown of what Obamacare ACTUALLY is.

What is Obamacare and what did it change?

Okay, explained like you’re a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased:

What people call “Obamacare” is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it “Obamacare” before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It’s a term mostly used by people who don’t like the PPACA, and it’s become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.

Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn’t have to.

So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):

Already in effect:

It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)

It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)

It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn’t directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181)

It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )

It makes a “high-risk pool” for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of “pre-existing conditions” altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered “pre-existing conditions” can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.

It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.

It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )

It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won’t get any more coverage because they have hit a “lifetime limit”. Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can’t tell that person that he’s used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won’t cover him any more. They can’t do this for lifetime spending, and they’re limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )

Kids can continue to be covered by their parents’ health insurance until they’re 26.

No more “pre-existing conditions” for kids under the age of 19.

Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.

People in a “Medicare Gap” get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.

Insurers can’t just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )

Insurers have to tell customers what they’re spending money on. (Instead of just “administrative fee”, they have to be more specific).

Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they’re turned down.

New ways to stop fraud are created.

Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.

Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.

Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.

A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it:http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).

A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.

A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they’re not price-gouging customers.

A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn’t paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.

Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.

8/1/2012
Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.

1/1/2013
If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word “tiny”, a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we’re talking about people in the top 5% of earners.

1/1/2014

This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.

No more “pre-existing conditions”. At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.

If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the “mandate” that people are talking about. Basically, it’s a trade-off for the “pre-existing conditions” bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can’t just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you’ll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you’re not buying insurance because you just can’t afford it.

Insurers now can’t do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )

Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher.

Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.

Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.

Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.

Cut some Medicare spending

Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.

Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage.

Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won’t be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.

A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.

A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.

A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they’ll get taxed.

The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.

1/1/2015
Doctors’ pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in this post. If you’re looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.

1/1/2017
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).

2018

All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).

A new tax on “Cadillac” health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).

2020
The elimination of the “Medicare gap”

.

Aaaaand that’s it right there.

The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it’s not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.

Plus, as previously mentioned, it’s necessary if you’re doing away with “pre-existing conditions” because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 28th, 2012
3:54 pm

“I love the people claiming they will move to Canada, or Rush saying he’d move to Costa Rica

Believe Boortz was playing the “Texas needs to secede so’s I can move there” card today.”

well, at least I know I’M safe here in the UK!!! :-D

Adam

June 28th, 2012
3:55 pm

By the way, “Obama raised your taxes” isn’t going to work because you’ve already been saying that for 4 years, and you’ve already got the people you’re going to get with that one. Assuming their single issue “tax” voters. But just like the gay marriage thing, it’s not going to cause Democrats, the base, or Independents to flee from Obama in droves. That’s just wishful thinking on your part.

Brosephus™

June 28th, 2012
3:55 pm

Doggone

That was what the case was about, but I think it was Scalia’s opinion that jumped the bridge I was referring to. As per this session, he went off on a tangent that had nothing to do with the case. Getting away from that case, you still have the same thing happening in Wisconsin and any other right-to-work state. I have co-workers who benefit from our CBA without paying anything at all in union dues. I haven’t heard anybody calling out for an end to that mooching yet.

Welcome to the Occupation

June 28th, 2012
3:55 pm

LOL. From Mitt Romney’s own website:

As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts …

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/courts-constitution

JamVet

June 28th, 2012
3:56 pm

To stands point, the Fox foxes and dirty laundry specialists are a LOT like Brittney Spears and all the subsequent divas, etc.

Infinitely more enjoyable with the sound muted and real music playing.

Shake that thing, Megyn….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doG-ADIEeN4

getalife

June 28th, 2012
3:56 pm

dems have a motion for public hearings on wide receiver.

Boom.

Filter

June 28th, 2012
3:57 pm

Oh my God, did someone just say that American Healthcare was the best system in the world?

REALLY? The way it was????? REALLY?

I was self employed for 17 years. Working in a field where lay my heart and soul. And I was widely seen as one of the best at what I did. The problem is that, although my passions lay there, the business was one in which only a few got rich and the rest of us made a decent, honest living but were solidly middle to lower middle class.

For 17 years I was able to put health insurance on my wife and children but had to exclude myself and take my chances. Why? When I was 7 I was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes. Unlike Type 2 this kind is not preventable or based on weight or other lifestyle choices.

So from the time I was 18 and was tossed from my parents policy (I couldn’t afford the COBRA at 18 and neither could my working class parents) until I left my chosen profession at 35 I was forced to incur HUGE bills and risks, bills which have kept me awash in debt all of my adult life.

I finally made the decision to leave my business behind and go work for a company through which I could get basic coverage. I may not like my work anymore and the people I employed had to go elsewhere, but at least I have some semblance of coverage.

So don’t give me this crap about the healthcare system in America being “the finest medical system in the world” Mighty Righty. It was a screwed up system that served those who had the means or the job to get coverage or those too poor to afford it. But if you were Middle Class and had a problem like mine then that’s just too d@#n bad.

“Speak not about that which thou dost not know.” Bastardized Shakespeare

Sean Hanitty

June 28th, 2012
3:58 pm

“Let not your heart be troubled”

:-)

ODD OWL

June 28th, 2012
3:58 pm

Is it feasible to compare the Roberts Supreme Court with the Warren Supreme Court back in the 60’s and the 70’s ??? The Supreme Court got a lot of work done this session… Most of it will benefit the American people… Thank You… But, the campaign finance law that the Roberts Court upheld must be revisited and struck down…

Steve

June 28th, 2012
3:58 pm

Wow, the “right” has a lot of lies and fear to spread! NEW and MORE TAXES!! (no, that’s not true). IT WILL RANK UP THE DEBT!! (nope, not true)

I don’t believe anything the right wing spews out these days. All, #$%ing lies.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 28th, 2012
3:58 pm

“dems have a motion for public hearings on wide receiver”

are they eliminating the position all together?

stands for decibels

June 28th, 2012
3:58 pm

which will destroy the finest medical system in the world

…for Saudi Princes who can afford the highest-end care? maybe.

for the 99%? not so much.

Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes

June 28th, 2012
4:00 pm

For whoever was wondering downstairs about Bristol Palin’s Wal-Mart Kardashian’s mother’s reaction: SARAH PALIN: ‘Obama Lies, Freedom Dies’

Jay

June 28th, 2012
4:00 pm

Meghan Kelly: ““the Supreme Court just woke up a sleeping giant.”

“The Supreme Court just woke up a sleeping giant,” declared Arizona House Republican Dave Schweikert.

Twitter going crazy with “sleeping giant”.

So “sleeping giant” it is.

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 28th, 2012
4:00 pm

“which will destroy the finest medical system in the world”

except for all the other ones that cost less per capita and get better results …

… of which there are many (and ours here in the UK is one of them!!)

single-payer, babbee!!!

stands for decibels

June 28th, 2012
4:00 pm

LOL. From Mitt Romney’s own website:

holy crow, they still haven’t revised that? It’s been hours since a cow orker pointed that one out to me.

Another guy who’s Bad At His Job, apparently. Mitt’s job for the last five years, of course, being “Runnin’ for Preznit.”

stands for decibels - Sleeping Giant

June 28th, 2012
4:01 pm

if ya say so, Jay!

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 28th, 2012
4:01 pm

sleeping giant???

that’s the best they could come up with???

sad, that.

stands for decibels - Sleeping Giant

June 28th, 2012
4:01 pm

oh well, back to producin’ for me.

Later, maybe…

Rickster

June 28th, 2012
4:03 pm

If there’s anyone that knows about being not being able to argue “credibly or logically” – it’s Jay.

godless heathen

June 28th, 2012
4:03 pm

So if you don’t have insurance, you pay a “tax” to the government up to $612. But you still don’t have insurance. So you are in an accident or get sick, you still go to the emergency room and run up thousands of dollars in medical bills that you can’t pay for. Well somebody still has to pay them, so the provider still charges the people that have insurance more to cover the expenses just like they do now. And this helps us how? Who is going to buy insurance if it costs more than $612 a year?

Doggone/GA

June 28th, 2012
4:04 pm

“That was what the case was about, but I think it was Scalia’s opinion that jumped the bridge I was referring to. As per this session, he went off on a tangent that had nothing to do with the case”

Oh, Ok…that I did not know about. I just heard the decision and what the case was about.

‘I have co-workers who benefit from our CBA without paying anything at all in union dues. I haven’t heard anybody calling out for an end to that mooching yet”

You can thank Georgia’s right to work laws for that.

Bernie

June 28th, 2012
4:05 pm

Jay, Surely Mitt is now thinking that he is somewhere in the TWILIGHT ZONE right about now.

To have authored a LAW with great success on a STATE level. Then to have to denigrate and deride the same law which you in fact enacted as Bad policy, is like waking up in a bad dream and see that is real.

MITT has BUZZARD LUCK!

Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people

June 28th, 2012
4:05 pm

I want to levy a tax on fat people. And old people.

This should get fun.

Adam

June 28th, 2012
4:06 pm

Sleeping giant my ass. The sleeping giant is the mass of liberals who stayed home in 2010, not these yokels that ALWAYS vote Republican come hell or high water.

Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people

June 28th, 2012
4:06 pm

I want a tax on people who have an abortion

And anyone that gets a journalism degree

Butch Cassidy

June 28th, 2012
4:07 pm

godless heathen – “So if you don’t have insurance, you pay a “tax” to the government up to $612. But you still don’t have insurance. So you are in an accident or get sick, you still go to the emergency room and run up thousands of dollars in medical bills that you can’t pay for.”

Not exactly. The penalty paid by those who choose not to het insurance is udsed to offset the cost of treatment should one need it. Unlike now where it’s a 100% free ride for anyone who walks in the door.