Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Smith who wrote (493514)	6/29/2012 7:36:31 PM
From: didjuneau	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793955

landmarklegal.org Landmark Legal Foundation has made a good argument against the Constitutionality of the penalty "tax". It runs from page 18 to 35. The people that Nancy Pelosi considers the "free riders" are those who can afford health insurance but choose to pay out of pocket because insurance is worthless if paying for such an unaffordable mess means you can no longer enjoy living. There is nothing free about paying out of pocket - the rates are jacked up ridiculously high because of all the government regulations - made worse by ACA. Doctors should be happy to accept cash up front and offer discounts for that, but the hospital emergency room seems to have other ideas. Recouping losses from deadbeats from those who do pay appears to be the modus operandi there. The real free riders are those who are already covered by or eligible for Medicaid because of low income. Nothing really changes for them except for more layers of bureaucracy to deal with. Except they'll get free condoms now on the way out the door. Woo hoo! There is no safety net being added here at all for the people with no health insurance who were purportedly to be the beneficiaries of this legislation. Quite the opposite. Everything this was sold on is a lie. Roberts points out the lie, but why did he accept it? What a disappointment he turned out to be.

To: Paul Smith who wrote (493514)	6/29/2012 8:58:22 PM
From: ManyMoose	2 Recommendations Respond to of 793955

I just don't get how you are going to add, what, fifteen million people to the system without about 30,000 new doctors that we don't have.

To: Paul Smith who wrote (493514)	6/29/2012 11:40:10 PM
From: robert a belfer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

Sorry, 54 % seems like a thin reed to me. <The U.S. Supreme Court's decision that President Obama's health care law is constitutional keeps it alive for now. But it's important to remember that the law has already lost in the court of public opinion. The Supreme Court ruling is a temporary reprieve more than anything else. In March, I wrote that the health care law was doomed even if it survived the court. Looking at the data today, it's hard to draw any other conclusion. Fifty-four percent of voters nationwide still want to see the law repealed. That's going to be a heavy burden for the Obama campaign to bear.>