The Blaze:
Congressional Republicans inched closer toward repealing Obamacare early Saturday morning when the Senate passed its version of tax reform.
What happened?
Included in the Senate’s bill was a provision that eliminates Obamacare’s infamous individual mandate. The mandate forces every American to have health insurance, and if they don’t, it levies an annual penalty, or as the Supreme Court ruled, a “tax” to be paid to the IRS.
The provision has been widely unpopular since the bill’s passage in 2010. However, its removal signals a real possibility that Congress might begin dismantling former President Barack Obama’s signature achievement. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wy.) hailed the accomplishment after its passage, according to The Hill:
Families ought to be able to make decisions about what they want to buy and what works for them –not the government.
I believe if people don’t want to buy the Obamacare insurance, they shouldn’t have to pay a tax penalty to the IRS.
However, some have warned that simply repealing the mandate without addressing the law’s mandated coverage for pre-existing conditions will make the health care situation even worse, since the two provisions work in tandem.What’s next?
The Senate’s accomplishment, which paves the way for Trump’s first major legislative achievement, still has a ways to go before Republicans can declare victory. That’s because the House has already passed their own version of tax reform, meaning the two bills will have to be reconciled in committee before they can be sent to Trump’s desk.
As far as the individual mandate repeal goes, the House’s bill didn’t include it. But chances are, House Republicans will approve it.
No Democrats supported either bill, but Trump said on social media early Saturday that he expects to sign a final bill before Christmas.
@Greg: As I stated, the “estimates” were all over the place. They were obviously WAGs to favor the argument for socialized health care. In fact, it was found that less than 15 million that actually WANTED insurance did not have it.
According to whom? I trust the Census Bureau’s methodology. Because they actually have one. They don’t just pull numbers out of a hat.
@Greg: When the arguments were being made, the numbers ranged from 30 to 47 million. They also sometimes included illegal immigrants, who were supposedly ineligible. Apparently they WERE pulling the figures out of their hat… or somewhere.
December 15, 2018 — As Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional, Democrats Seethe, Republicans Stay Mum
Of course they remained quiet. Contrary to what they asserted innumerable times, they have come up with nothing acceptable to replace it. If they don’t, millions of Americans will lose their health insurance, and millions more will lose their preexisting condition protection. If they think this doesn’t matter to anyone, they will discover otherwise in 2020.
Right. It was entirely constitutional until Trump and his republican cohorts killed the penalty provision—a conclusion that upheld even by conservative-leaning justices of the Supreme Court. They’ve been methodically sabotaging the Affordable Care Act in every possible way, all the while loudly proclaiming that it was doomed to fail on its own.
Not to worry! Trump repeatedly told you the GOP had something cheaper and better that would be available to everybody, all ready to roll out as soon as he was in office. He couldn’t reveal the details, of course, for some reason or other, but—and you can trust him on this—it would be Great News for America!
@Greg:
The Congress required Americans to do something that was never Constitutional; purchase a product whether they wanted it or not, and be forced to show that they had purchased that product. It failed under the Commerce Clause, but Roberts bailed the Dems out with his “taxing powers” rational.
If you want health insurance, buy it. But it’s not health insurance you’re worried about. You’re worried that a Socialist program is about to go down in flames. That’s because you’re a Socialist. Move to Cuba or any other Socialist nation and report back to us how that works out for you.
Why should I be forced to pay inflated insurance premiums, medical service costs, and higher taxes to pick up the tab for those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves?
Maybe you should stop talking about socialism until republicans get rid of corporate welfare programs, handouts to millionaire farmers, mining companies, and oil companies. Remind me how much these guys pay to file a mineral rights claim on public land.
@Greg: Not taxing is different than imposing a tax on something someone didnt buy.
If the insurance companies want customers the price point will naturally come down. Each State can decide if they wish to dictate what services they must include.
@Greg:
Well, they are much more bloated now than they used to be, aren’t they? Thanks, Obamacare!
I left a hint there for you.
Have you somehow forgotten that healthcare costs and health insurance premiums were climbing rapidly for many years before the Affordable Care Act even existed? The lack of any meaningful response was one reason the republican majority finally got booted the last time around—an experience from which they apparently learned nothing whatsoever. If the response turns out to be a truly socialized, single-payer system, you’ll have the GOP to thank for it.
You left a hint about something, alright. Just not what you think.
Public land means it belongs to the public, both present and future, not to special interests. The public is generally not adequately compensated for the value of that which is taken from their property. They mostly get stuck with the costs of the serious environmental problems that are far too often left behind.
@Greg: Since 1994, the Trust Lands Administration has generated $1.87 billion in revenue for beneficiaries(including public schools, hospitals, teaching colleges, and universities.). any other questions? Oil and minerals dont walk out of the ground that creates jobs, which creates taxes.
That was just Utah.
@Greg:
I remember they weren’t going up 50-100% a year.
Who needs and benefits from cheap energy? Hint: the answer is in the other hint. Who benefits from carbon credits, higher taxes and inflated energy prices? NOT the public.
@Greg:
Depends on where it is and how long term the lease is. Of course, just leasing federal land to drill is no guarantee the companies will hit oil. But if they do, there is a royalty that is paid to the Federal government (making the U.S. government a partner in the production). I’m sure you created that question due to the Washington ComPost article a few years back.
and then you quipped:
Do you mean all the illegals who flock to emergency rooms (usually after 7:00 p.m.) but have no insurance and no money and never pay for any medical treatment they receive? What happens then, Greggie Gullible? Either a hospital, usually in rural communities, goes belly up, or the debt is made up by billing those with health insurance. Or how about those with Medicaid that have never paid one damn dime into the system?
The Constitution guarantees you the right to pursue happiness, so if health care gives you happiness, then you should pay for it. But you seem to think people have the right to demand the services of others, i.e. doctors, nurses, medical techs, all medical personnel. You don’t. No more than you have a right to demand a plumber fix your leaky faucet.
As to vehicular liability insurance: that is a state law. It doesn’t protect your investment in your vehicle, it protects others against the damage you might do. Again, illegals do not buy liability insurance. They drive without insurance, as I can attest to since had I not had “uninsured motorist” insurance the illegal that hit me would have ruined my vehicle and I would have had to cover the entire cost of repairs.
Social Security was unconstitutional. But FDR threated to stack the USSC, if they did not pass it, by adding more justices. You see, FDR was a Socialist.
And there is no denying you’re an idiot. And cannot think for yourself and can only parrot the left wing mantras.
@kitt, #60:
What an amazing deal for the public.
What do you think the total value extracted from public lands by private companies over the past 25 years might be? I’m guessing compared with that total, $1.87 billion is the equivalent of a small bag of salted peanuts.
Huge handouts to wealthy special interests is surely one of the swampiest of all swamp critter arrangements. It’s a perennial favorite.
@Greg:
How much of the $1.87 billion would the American people have gotten if entrepreneurs had not developed the resources?
One of the major problems liberals have is that they are so jealous of someone making money that they never see the benefit they receive for the efforts of the entrepreneurs. All they see is someone making more money than they are, though they never consider sharing in any of the risk or labor.
@Deplorable Me, #64:
The point is that the American people should have gotten far more than an average of 23 cents each, per year, over a 25 year period, which is roughly what the $1.87 billion over 25 years works out to. That’s actually considerably less than the value of a small bag of peanuts.
Consider the possibility that some people just don’t like swindlers, cronyism, and thieves.
@Greg: I quoted for the State of Utah only, The American people as one of them I am glad to see the land utilized for the benefit of public schools, hospitals, teaching colleges, and universities in the state that the resources are in. As the Trust Lands Administration takes 0 dollars in federal money to operate, the benefit also covered all operating expenses. Any profits created from the leases is of course pay taxes the state and federal coffers.
Silly boy its a win win.
@Greg:
Consider the reality that some people just resent the success of others who through their own ingenuity, dedication, drive and labor have more money that they do.
Although, Democrats, who constantly harp on rich white people have no objection to taking money from rich white people for their campaigns.
@Greg:
“AUSTIN – According to just-released data from the Texas Oil & Gas Association (TXOGA), the Texas oil and natural gas industry paid $13.8 billion in state and local taxes and state royalties in fiscal year 2015, the second highest such collection from the oil and natural gas industry in Texas history.”
@Greg:
If you have a few hundred million dollars to spare, you are welcome to petition the government to use the public lands, prove you are going to be environmentally responsible and provide the certification for all your equipment and the training of your workers and get ALL the profits yourself. You DO know what “public” means… right?
I’ve considered that and it makes me wonder why you supported Obama and Hillary. Both got rich through government service. Remember Reid running ranchers off of public grazing land so his son could partner with Chinese investors on solar farms?
You’ve just described many of Trump’s disgruntled base, who believe their failure to adapt and thrive in a changing global economy is the fault of anyone but themselves, and the people who are pointing fingers and shouting while picking their pockets.
@Greg:
You’ve just described many of the Democrat’s disgruntled base, who believe their failure to adapt and thrive in a changing global economy is the fault of anyone but themselves, and the people who are pointing fingers and shouting while picking their pockets.
Changed it for you so it reads correctly.
Democrats win because they promise free stuff: free health insurance, free cell phones, free college educations, the list is endless.
And by ignoring that two of the biggest donors to the Democratic Party, and it’s candidates, are Tom Steyer and George Soros, both self made billionaires all the while gritching how they want “money” out of elections.
Take your propaganda and shove it. No one on this blog believes a damn thing you say.
@retire05, #71:
Nothing is free. What this is about is the reallocation of a portion of the nation’s collective productivity so as to benefit society as a whole—an approach that seems to be most resented by those who already have the greatest advantage.
Our nation’s era of greatest general prosperity coincided with a time of far more progressive tax schedules. The farther we’ve gotten away from that, the more the prosperity of the American middle and working classes has declined, and the more rapidly unsustainable deficits and debt have risen. This observation is a simple, undeniable fact.
Too great a portion of wealth at the top becomes a burden that everyone else is made to carry. Trickle-down theory is a self-serving myth; that tax cuts invariably increase revenue is also a fantasy. They’re all rationalizations for an unsustainable situation that’s been allowed to go out of balance.
@retire05:
And then, with the media’s help, they blame Republicans for the free stuff not materializing out of thin air.
@Greg:
Wow, Greggie Gullible!!! Your Socialism is showing. Why didn’t you just say you support “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”?
This nation is not based on “collective productivity” although you Socialists would like for it to be. The word “collective” can be found no where in the U.S. Constitution. You Socialists have misconstrued the term “general welfare” to mean that the government is responsible for taking care of everybody. Even so, the Constitution states the federal government will promote the general welfare, not provide it. Your Manchurian Candidate mentality seems to prevent you from accepting that.
Again, only half true. The United States entered the era of greatest “general” prosperity before income taxes were passed into permanent law. Citizens were going from kerosene lanterns for light to electric light bulbs; telephones were being installed; railroads were being build all across the nation; the American Industrial Age was well on its way. All before a federal income tax was passed into law by Congress.
I advise you to move to a truly Socialist nation to see exactly how Socialism works. It does not work for the “common man” but only for those who enforce Socialism. You would be on the losing end, Bubba.
@retire05:
I have always opined that in order to function optimally, any modern industrial society requires certain mechanisms that some people will characterize as socialistic, which must be balanced with other components that are unabashedly capitalistic. It’s all about achieving a sustainable balance, which encourages and compensates high levels of personal achievement while simultaneously guaranteeing some basic level of opportunity and security to everyone who plays by the rules.
Social Security and Medicare are both good examples of such mechanisms. I don’t consider myself to be any more a socialist than a capitalist for supporting them. I feel the same way about nutritional support programs, public health care, and public education.
It most certainly is based on collective productivity. Donald Trump has never laid a brick, designed a building, worked in a casino, landscaped a golf course, woven the cloth of the clothing he wears, or grown a bit of the food that he’s eaten. He didn’t design and build Air Force One or this cell phone. He may never once have assembled his own cheeseburger. His very existence depends upon the creativity and ceaseless efforts of countless others—not to mention his wealth.