Moreover, imagine a world in which on March 20, 2010 the CBO had provided an accurate projection of exactly how the law actually would play out:

• 12.5% fewer uninsured by 2014 rather than 37.3%
• millions with cancelled coverage, of which 1 million remain uninsured
• a $2 trillion increase in the federal debt in its first two decades rather than a deficit reduction
• far higher premium increases in the non-group, small group and large group markets than originally estimated
• Nearly $7,000 in added taxes/fees over a decade even for families in the lowest 20% of household income

You get the idea. Armed with accurate information about its actual effects, what member of Congress would have voted for this lemon law?

 

As long as congress gets huge cash bribes along with all kinds of other expensive gifts they will continue to vote in favor of the person paying for the vote, no matter how far off it is from their so called agenda and no matter how bad it hurts american people. Congress is no different than any other person, they do what is in their own best interest.

 

I believe that this is an accurate comparison between private sector and the ACA for HC costs.

[h=1]ACA premiums soar for some similar plans[/h]

http://www.valuepenguin.com/rate-shock-aca-premiums-soar-for-similar-plans

 

.

 

Actually the opposite is true for my wife and I. The only she keeps working is because she has to have health care insurance and with her pre-existing conditions she would never be able to get on another insurance policy and we can't afford her prescriptions otherwise which might have been a death sentence for her. But now thanks to the ACA she can not only get insurance it looks like it will actually be cheaper than what we have to pay through her employer.

 

Good for her. Just as my sixty five year old father now has two healthcare plans since his Medicare didn't cover his birth control pills. Also instead of eating one day I got to spend the day down at the welfare office signing up for Medicade so I didn't get taxed for not having something I didn't want.

 

since i have taken people to sign up for medicaide and have never stepped foot into a welfare office id say you must be either lying or just delusional

 

In my home town the welfare office is where you have to go to sign up for any government assistance. Now Texas may do it different.

 

since the ease of access plans were put into play people can apply online, on the phone, and even at food banks and employment offices
and almost every town has a public library that allows for internet usage with the exception of only Owsely county Kentucky from what i know

is still call bullshit

 

One I never give any of my personal information online. Two true the public library does offer internet service for one hour but do to point one that option is out. Three to quote our local office of workforce Solutions" this is not the welfare office we just handle unemployment." Finally point four I try to deal with any important business face to face. Call me old fashioned but I rather be able to ask a person what this or that means then scrolling through a screen only a lawyer could understand. I also don't care really if you believe me or not.

 

in that case do as aced did and acquiesce
you refused to go through the modern methods made to avail to deal with something and instead decided to go the old manner about it

i dont give one flying fuck because i am exempt from the law
as are my kids and will be their kids and even their kids
so this is a white mans issue

 

I have been in protest,, and will continue.

 

fight it like a good little bitch
its better when you struggle

 

Wonder how the court will twist THIS pretzel...

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/op_ed/2014/05/will_court_s_obamacare_ruling_may_yet_spell_its_doom

Court’s Obamacare ruling may yet spell its doom

WASHINGTON — If the president wants to witness a refutation of his assertion that the survival of the Affordable Care Act is assured, come Thursday he should stroll the 13 blocks from his office to the nation’s second-most important court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. There he can hear an argument involving yet another constitutional provision that evidently has escaped his notice. It is the Origination Clause, which says: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.”

The ACA passed the Senate on a party-line vote, and without a Democratic vote to spare, after a series of unsavory transactions that purchased the assent of several shrewdly extortionate Democrats. What will be argued on Thursday is that what was voted on — the ACA — was indisputably a revenue measure and unquestionably did not originate in the House, which later passed the ACA on another party-line vote.

This case comes from Matt Sissel, an Iowa artist and small-business owner who is represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, which litigates for limited government. Sissel neither has nor wants health insurance, preferring to invest his limited resources in his business. Hence he objects to the ACA’s mandate that requires him to purchase it or pay the penalty that the ACA daintily calls the “shared responsibility payment.”

In June 2012, a Supreme Court majority accepted a, shall we say, creative reading of the ACA by Chief Justice John Roberts. The court held that the penalty, which the ACA repeatedly calls a penalty, is really just a tax on the activity — actually, the nonactivity — of not purchasing insurance. The individual mandate is not, the court held, a command but merely the definition of a condition that can be taxed. The tax is mild enough to be semi-voluntary; individuals are free to choose whether or not to commit the inactivity that triggers the tax.

The “exaction” — Roberts’ word — “looks,” he laconically said, “like a tax in many respects.” It is collected by the IRS, and the proceeds go to the Treasury for the general operations of the federal government, not to fund a particular program. This surely makes the ACA a revenue measure.

Did it, however, originate in the House? Of course not.

In October 2009, the House passed a bill that would have modified a tax credit for members of the armed forces and some other federal employees who were first-time home buyers — a bill that had nothing to do with health care. Two months later the Senate “amended” this bill by obliterating it. The Senate renamed it and completely erased its contents, replacing them with the ACA’s contents.

Case law establishes that for a Senate action to qualify as a genuine “amendment” to a House-passed revenue bill, it must be “germane to the subject matter of the [House] bill.” The Senate’s shell game — gutting and replacing the House bill — created the ACA from scratch. The ACA obviously flunks the germaneness test, without which the House’s constitutional power of originating revenue bills would be nullified.

Case law establishes that the Origination Clause does not apply to two kinds of bills. One creates “a particular governmental program and ... raises revenue to support only that program.” The second creates taxes that are “analogous to fines” in that they are designed to enforce compliance with a statute passed under one of the Constitution’s enumerated powers of Congress other than the taxing power. The ACA’s tax, which the Supreme Court repeatedly said is not an enforcement penalty, and hence is not analogous to a fine, fits neither exception to the Origination Clause.

The ACA’s defenders say its tax is somehow not quite a tax because it is not primarily for raising revenue but for encouraging certain behavior (buying insurance). But the Origination Clause, a judicially enforceable limit on the taxing power, would be effectively erased from the Constitution if any tax with any regulatory — behavior-changing — purpose or effect were exempt from the clause.

The Court of Appeals sits six blocks from the Senate, which committed the legislative legerdemain of pretending to merely amend a House bill while actually originating a new one. Across the street from the Senate sits the Supreme Court, where this case may be headed.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court saved the ACA by declaring its penalty to be a tax. It thereby doomed the ACA as an unconstitutional violation of the Origination Clause.

 

All I can say is,,it's about fucking time this reached the courts...

I mentioned this back nearly 3 years ago,, and you can find it in a thread somewhere,,I can assure you of that.

This alone will kill the bill, or at least it should,,it was ruled that the federal government is permitted by the constitution to lay tax, which ACA does lay tax, fine, whatever. Along with the fact the Senate can not create a bill solely to raise revenue, which the Senate did.

ACA needs revenue to survive.

 

.....

 

..

 

..