Scotus Upholds PPACA, but calls the individual mandate a "tax"

[Mr. Happy]

Even though I am a staunch conservative and will no doubt be castigated by some of my fellow conservatives for this position, I actually have reserved judgment on the Court until I've read the opinions (not someone else's view on the opinions), which, unfortunately, won't be until I finish this third book manuscript in late July. I was really hoping for a 9-0 vote one way or the other, but I guess that I was engaging in wishful thinking. By classifying the individual mandate (which won't affect me directly since I have the good fortune and sense to have personal health insurance) as a "tax," it might create a backlash against taxes in general, which I could favor very much. You'll no doubt hear plenty of self-righteous bullshit about activist judges, but I won't be listening to any of it. I think that politics is almost inseparable from the realities of judgment. Your views on politics inevitably cloud your judicial thinking. I'm actually more frightened of putting a politically heretofore benign person on the Court. David Souter actually was a pretty piss poor excuse for a justice. Thankfully, he commuted our respective life sentences to time served by retiring. He could have hung on until he was a dribbling old fool in a Depends. I do respect him for getting off of the Court though.

[Limey]

I have seen people say - after the mandate was upheld as a tax - that not doing so would open the door for people to challenge taxes in general.  I'm no lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, so I have no idea.

I agree that the politics of this thing has steamrollered most debate about the actual constitutionality of the elements of the bill.  I think most pudnits, and many politicians, are gobsmacked that the Supreme Court appeared to do exactly that.  You know...their job.

[Mr. Happy]

I have seen people say - after the mandate was upheld as a tax - that not doing so would open the door for people to challenge taxes in general.  I'm no lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, so I have no idea.

I agree that the politics of this thing has steamrollered most debate about the actual constitutionality of the elements of the bill.  I think most pudnits, and many politicians, are gobsmacked that the Supreme Court appeared to do exactly that.  You know...their job.

I have purposely turned off all television and radio and am listening to my ipod as I write because the talk will be nothing but hyperbole about either how good or how bad this decision is. Since I haven't read it, I have no fucking idea. However, given that some of our nation's best and brightest work for SCOTUS and wrote and researched for the opinion, I'm certainly not going to jump to conclusions with lots of other conservatives and call the opinions "wrong" or "stupid" or "activist" or anything inanely cliche like that.

[HudsonHawk]

I think most pudnits, and many politicians, are gobsmacked that the Supreme Court appeared to do exactly that.  You know...their job.

I think most are gobsmacked that the vote didn't go 5-4 along party lines.  I think Roberts got it right when he said "it's not our job to protect people from the consequences of their political choices".

[sporadic]

I think Roberts got it right when he said "it's not our job to protect people from their political choices".

This, absolutely. 

[BizidyDizidy]

I've been reading the opinion, and it makes sense to me. The federal government levies plenty of taxes to encourage wanted behavior (try and buy a pack of cigarettes). Hard to really argue that the mandate is any more than that at the end of the day.

I like that they both struck down the commerce clause justification (that fucker is broad enough as it is), and protected state sovereignty on the medicare side.

[Limey]

Another wrinkle I've read is about the Medicaid expansion.  From what I understand, the Act expanded Medicaid to people earning up to 133% of the poverty line, and the Federal Govt. would reimburse the States for the additional expense...for a while at least (it drops to 90% in 2020, for example).  If States opted out of the expansion, they would lose all of their Federal Medicaid dollars.

The Court ruled that they could offer the carrot, but not the stick.  So the States can opt out of the expansion, but maintain their existing Medicaid program and Federal assistance.

The question now is: what does this do the Federal policy across the board going forward?  I don't think it's unusual for the Feds to threaten penalties on States who didn't comply with Federal policy - Louisiana being forced to increase its drinking age from 18 to 21 or face losing road funding is an example that springs to mind.  Well maybe now the Feds have lost the ability to do that to LA or any other State about anything.

Interesting...

[EasTexAstro]

I have seen people say - after the mandate was upheld as a tax - that not doing so would open the door for people to challenge taxes in general.  I'm no lawyer, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, so I have no idea.

I agree that the politics of this thing has steamrollered most debate about the actual constitutionality of the elements of the bill.  I think most pudnits, and many politicians, are gobsmacked that the Supreme Court appeared to do exactly that.  You know...their job.

I am at a loss to find what I had read recently, and of course I am no lawyer, but there was something about not being able to sue the federal government over taxes? Maybe  read it wrong. The only way this is constitutional is by calling it a tax, if I understood the discussion by real lawyers. BO insisted it wasn't a tax, but it wouldn't be legal otherwise.

[EasTexAstro]

I think most are gobsmacked that the vote didn't go 5-4 along party lines.  I think Roberts got it right when he said "it's not our job to protect people from the consequences of their political choices".

+1

[BizidyDizidy]

Another wrinkle I've read is about the Medicaid expansion.  From what I understand, the Act expanded Medicaid to people earning up to 133% of the poverty line, and the Federal Govt. would reimburse the States for the additional expense...for a while at least (it drops to 90% in 2020, for example).  If States opted out of the expansion, they would lose all of their Federal Medicaid dollars.

The Court ruled that they could offer the carrot, but not the stick.  So the States can opt out of the expansion, but maintain their existing Medicaid program and Federal assistance.

The question now is: what does this do the Federal policy across the board going forward?  I don't think it's unusual for the Feds to threaten penalties on States who didn't comply with Federal policy - Louisiana being forced to increase its drinking age from 18 to 21 or face losing road funding is an example that springs to mind.  Well maybe now the Feds have lost the ability to do that to LA or any other State about anything.

Interesting...

They discussed that in the opinion - the road funding examples were very mild - e.g. 5% of road funding which made up less than half a percent of the state budget. They viewed that as not unreasonably coercive. Federal medicare funds are 10+% of the state budget.

[BizidyDizidy]

I am at a loss to find what I had read recently, and of course I am no lawyer, but there was something about not being able to sue the federal government over taxes? Maybe  read it wrong. The only way this is constitutional is by calling it a tax, if I understood the discussion by real lawyers. BO insisted it wasn't a tax, but it wouldn't be legal otherwise.

There is a law that says you cannot challenge taxes until after you have paid them (it's so the government can have some near-term assurance of revenue without having everything tied up in court forever). One argument was that this appeal was invalid because no one has paid the penalty/tax on the mandate yet. Court ruled that for the purposes of that act, the mandate was a penalty and not a tax. It's a bit of a threading the needle, because he upheld the constitutionality of the mandate because it was a tax, not a penalty, but when you read the opinion/reasoning it makes sense and there seems to be a fairly direct precedent.

[EasTexAstro]

There is a law that says you cannot challenge taxes until after you have paid them (it's so the government can have some near-term assurance of revenue without having everything tied up in court forever). One argument was that this appeal was invalid because no one has paid the penalty/tax on the mandate yet. Court ruled that for the purposes of that act, the mandate was a penalty and not a tax. It's a bit of a threading the needle, because he upheld the constitutionality of the mandate because it was a tax, not a penalty, but when you read the opinion/reasoning it makes sense and there seems to be a fairly direct precedent.

Thank you for the clarification.

[jbm]

I think most are gobsmacked that the vote didn't go 5-4 along party lines.  I think Roberts got it right when he said "it's not our job to protect people from the consequences of their political choices".

While this is true, does a SC Justice really need to say shit like this?  It is either constitutional, or it isn't; his job isn't to provide social or political commentary. 

[BizidyDizidy]

While this is true, does a SC Justice really need to say shit like this?  It is either constitutional, or it isn't; his job isn't to provide social or political commentary. 

How is that social or political commentary?

[HudsonHawk]

While this is true, does a SC Justice really need to say shit like this?  It is either constitutional, or it isn't; his job isn't to provide social or political commentary. 

That isn't social or political commentary, he's explaining his reasoning for upholding a clearly unpopular law.

[Bench]

I've been reading the opinions - I've gotten through Roberts' majority and Ginsberg's concurrence but haven't made it to the dissent yet.  What's interesting from a scholarly perspective is that Roberts drew a line in the sand in commerce clause powers over the active versus passive nature of regulated economic activity which had never really been articulated before.  Ginsberg took him to task calling that analysis, or test, rigidly formal and that it ignores the economic realities of diverse markets. 

Bizidy very succinctly explained the expansion of medicaid analysis in contrast to the 21 drinking age case and there's not much I can add to that other than noting Roberts' use of the classic line that "Your money or your life" is a coercive statement regardless of whether you have $1 in your pocket or $500.

I'm interested to see how the dissent explains that congress doesn't have the power to tax people for not having health insurance, but alas I have actual work to do.

[BizidyDizidy]

I'm in the middle of Ginsburg's concurrence as well, and wondering the same thing. My guess is they will say it's not a tax.

[Bench]

While this is true, does a SC Justice really need to say shit like this?  It is either constitutional, or it isn't; his job isn't to provide social or political commentary. 

Which is exactly his point.  He's not saying whether it is a good law or a bad law - that is not the role of the judiciary.  Judicial review merely can determine whether the law is permissible or not.

[Bench]

That isn't social or political commentary, he's explaining his reasoning for upholding a clearly unpopular law.

Don't the polls show that the law is generally popular?

[HudsonHawk]

Don't the polls show that the law is generally popular?

I thought it was the opposite, but I haven't been keeping a close eye on it, especially once it went to the SCOTUS.

[EasTexAstro]

Don't the polls show that the law is generally popular?

Overall, unpopular. Certain provisions are popular, though, such as carrying coverage from one employer to another, carrying kids until they are 26+ ( I forget the age cutoff), and not denying for preexisting ailments. The unpopular issues are fines for not carrying insurance and medicare mandates to the states.

[subnuclear]

Don't the polls show that the law is generally popular?

Its complicated to poll since few people understand all of it and lots of people live in fairy-tale land one way or another on the subject. If Obama gets re-elected then that's about a good answer as you'll get.

[jbm]

Well, the quote in isolation may be read as innocuous.  Maybe it actually is, and my mistake was coupling it with a headline that he said Obama was a tax and spend liberal.  So, I read it in a way (which I still believe it was intended) to say:  quit whining you dumbasses, you get what you elect.  That is social and political commentary IMO, which while true, doesn't need to be stated in a SC decision.

[EasTexAstro]

I'm interested to see how the dissent explains that congress doesn't have the power to tax people for not having health insurance, but alas I have actual work to do.

How does congress have the power to tax a non-activity?

Should they tax a person without a vehicle because roads are provided in case they need to use the road?

Should they tax a person for not having home or rental insurance?

What about flight insurance or maritime insurance?

[sporadic]

quit whining you dumbasses, you get what you elect

Which in itself is ironic, considering how the legislation was rammed through Congress in the first place

[BizidyDizidy]

How does congress have the power to tax a non-activity?

Should they tax a person without a vehicle because roads are provided in case they need to use the road?

Should they tax a person for not having home or rental insurance?

What about flight insurance or maritime insurance?

They can tax you for whatever they want. Don't elect idiots.

[EasTexAstro]

Don't elect idiots.

Too late.

[chuck]

They can tax you for whatever they want. Don't elect idiots.

If you drive a car they'll tax the street. If you try to sit they'll tax your seat. If you get too cold they'll tax the heat. If you take a walk they'll tax your feet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyNrCXRl1Tw

[BudGirl]

Should they tax a person without a vehicle because roads are provided in case they need to use the road?

Should they tax a person for not having home or rental insurance?

Just curious, how should public transportation be funded?  You can't ride it until it is built.

FEMA?  do away with it?

[BudGirl]

That is social and political commentary IMO, which while true, doesn't need to be stated in a SC decision.

I was understanding the quote was made in an interview not part of the decision.

[MusicMan]

If you drive a car they'll tax the street. If you try to sit they'll tax your seat. If you get too cold they'll tax the heat. If you take a walk they'll tax your feet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyNrCXRl1Tw

Please tell me you linked the SRV version.

[NeilT]

How does congress have the power to tax a non-activity?

Should they tax a person without a vehicle because roads are provided in case they need to use the road?

Should they tax a person for not having home or rental insurance?

What about flight insurance or maritime insurance?

Next thing you know they'll be making me pay social security tax when I'm not even retired.

[BizidyDizidy]

Next thing you know they'll be making me pay social security tax when I'm not even retired. never going to see one red cent

FIFY

[jbm]

I was understanding the quote was made in an interview not part of the decision.

You must be correct, as I can't find it in articles on the opinion.

[BudGirl]

Neil might, he's old.

[BizidyDizidy]

You must be correct, as I can't find it in articles on the opinion.

Definitely did not say that in the opinion.

[NeilT]

Neil might, he's old.

and they're taxing me because I might, if I'm lucky, get older.

[subnuclear]

Which in itself is ironic, considering how the legislation was rammed through Congress in the first place

Not sure what you mean. Democrats, who have been talking about health care reform for a long time, had both sides of congress and the presidency.

[Bench]

Definitely did not say that in the opinion.

Page 44:  "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."

[Bench]

Its complicated to poll since few people understand all of it and lots of people live in fairy-tale land one way or another on the subject. If Obama gets re-elected then that's about a good answer as you'll get.

That sounds about right.

[BizidyDizidy]

Not sure what you mean. Democrats, who have been talking about health care reform for a long time, had both sides of congress and the presidency.

Weren't there shenanigans about passing it when no one was there?

[subnuclear]

Weren't there shenanigans about passing it when no one was there?

There was a lot of BS, but passing the legislation that they were elected for really isn't "ramming" as much as dealing with a screwy legislative process. 

[EasTexAstro]

Just curious, how should public transportation be funded?  You can't ride it until it is built.

I don't know. How? Riders? Communities? Cities? States? Regions? What does the federal government have to do with riding between UH and downtown Houston?

FEMA?  do away with it?

They help handle national emergencies. That seems to be part of the federal government's job. That is different, to me, to saying I have to pay someone to handle my healthcare.

I've been chastised here before for my healthcare choices, but I stand by them. I have catastrophic coverage for my family and pay my doctors out of pocket for routine care (which is WAY cheaper than insurance). Now, I get to pay more so the government can be involved, or pay an insurance company more than what my health care needs are, and those costs will probably go up due to paperwork and regulation.

I'm not sure how that service is covered in protecting our borders, interstate commerce, infrastructure, or our judicial system without a major change to our constitution. It seems to be constitutional, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.

[EasTexAstro]

Next thing you know they'll be making me pay social security tax when I'm not even retired.

You are counting on social security?

[sporadic]

Not sure what you mean. Democrats, who have been talking about health care reform for a long time, had both sides of congress and the presidency.

Passed by Democrats about to be out of a job.  It was legislation the american people clearly did not want passed.  Had they, they surely would not have turned over Congress in such dramatic fashion.

[Bench]

I've been chastised here before for my healthcare choices, but I stand by them. I have catastrophic coverage for my family and pay my doctors out of pocket for routine care (which is WAY cheaper than insurance). Now, I get to pay more so the government can be involved, or pay an insurance company more than what my health care needs are, and those costs will probably go up due to paperwork and regulation.

Your employer doesn't provide you with health insurance?

/ducking

[sporadic]

Your employer doesn't provide you with health insurance?

/ducking

He will have to soon enough, or will be partaking in this tax as well...

[Limey]

Passed by Democrats about to be out of a job.  It was legislation the american people clearly did not want passed.  Had they, they surely would not have turned over Congress in such dramatic fashion.

Weren't Obama and his fellow Democrats swept into power on a promise to change things, including a comprehensive reform of health insurance?

My understanding is that much of the unpopularity of Obamacare was fomented by Republicans who claimed it was an attack on Medicare and would explode the budget.  Neither of which was true.  Republicans rode that wave into power and then immediately set about dismantling Medicare, forcing a deficit-exploding extension of the Bush tax cuts and repealing* Obamacare with all of it's deficit-reducing savings.

* without even the flicker of a nod to the "replace" part of that campaign meme.

[subnuclear]

Passed by Democrats about to be out of a job.  It was legislation the american people clearly did not want passed.  Had they, they surely would not have turned over Congress in such dramatic fashion.

If Democrats are elected to the majority, you can't cry when they pass Democratic legislation.  

[MusicMan]

Passed by Democrats about to be out of a job.  It was legislation the american people clearly did not want passed.  Had they, they surely would not have turned over Congress in such dramatic fashion.

So let me get this straight... the American people elected their officials, were displeased with the results, and accordingly began electing different officials.

In the mean time, our justice system reviewed the law, determined it was a constitutional law and that the court's job was not to comment on the wisdom, but only the constitutionality, and upheld accordingly.

Why is everyone so up in arms?  THIS IS EXACTLY HOW THE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.

[jbm]

Passed by Democrats about to be out of a job.  It was legislation the american people clearly did not want passed.  Had they, they surely would not have turned over Congress in such dramatic fashion.

This is the most misunderstood and demagogued issue in my lifetime.  The average person knows jackshit about this law.  Many who try to educate themselves about this law probably know jackshit about this law.  Polls show people like all the benefits, but hate the mechanism which makes them possible.  Additionally, most republicans now hate a system they devised.  

In sum, on this issue, it is folly to assume rationality has anything to do with public opinion and electoral consequences.  You know, the country is inhabited by a "Get the fucking government out of my medicare" crowd.  

BTW, I apologize for my observation about Roberts.  I can find no evidence that he ever said that about Obama.  I can find an article entitled "In his Supreme Court Opinion, Roberts calls Obama a Tax and Spend Liberal."  However, there is absolutely no evidence provided in the article that he wrote it, said it, or even thinks it.  I should have read the propoganda/news first before I slammed Roberts.

[sporadic]

If Democrats are elected to the majority, you can't cry when they pass Democratic legislation.  

Not crying, merely pointing out it was not all that popular

[HudsonHawk]

So let me get this straight... the American people elected their officials, were displeased with the results, and accordingly began electing different officials.

In the mean time, our justice system reviewed the law, determined it was a constitutional law and that the court's job was not to comment on the wisdom, but only the constitutionality, and upheld accordingly.

Why is everyone so up in arms?  THIS IS EXACTLY HOW THE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.

You obviously have no idea how traditional American whining works.

[Mr. Happy]

Don't the polls show that the law is generally popular?

No. Rasmussen has consistently shown that 54-60% of the public opposes the individual mandate (now a "tax").

[sporadic]

So let me get this straight... the American people elected their officials, were displeased with the results, and accordingly began electing different officials.

In the mean time, our justice system reviewed the law, determined it was a constitutional law and that the court's job was not to comment on the wisdom, but only the constitutionality, and upheld accordingly.

Why is everyone so up in arms?  THIS IS EXACTLY HOW THE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.

very, very good point

[MusicMan]

No. Rasmussen has consistently shown that 54-60% of the public opposes the individual mandate (now a "tax").

And yet only 37% wanted it overturned, with 40% saying they had "mixed feelings".

[EasTexAstro]

Your employer doesn't provide you with health insurance?

/ducking

I have insurance through my employer, with an option for my family. My family costs 10% of what it would cost me to carry insurance each year.

[EasTexAstro]

So let me get this straight... the American people elected their officials, were displeased with the results, and accordingly began electing different officials.

In the mean time, our justice system reviewed the law, determined it was a constitutional law and that the court's job was not to comment on the wisdom, but only the constitutionality, and upheld accordingly.

Why is everyone so up in arms?  THIS IS EXACTLY HOW THE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.

Agree 100%

[Mr. Happy]

So let me get this straight... the American people elected their officials, were displeased with the results, and accordingly began electing different officials.

In the mean time, our justice system reviewed the law, determined it was a constitutional law and that the court's job was not to comment on the wisdom, but only the constitutionality, and upheld accordingly.

Why is everyone so up in arms?  THIS IS EXACTLY HOW THE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.

Absolutely correct.

[JimR]

Passed by Democrats about to be out of a job.  It was legislation the american people clearly did not want passed.  Had they, they surely would not have turned over Congress in such dramatic fashion.

you obviously were not a history major. mid-term elections almost always do this.

[sporadic]

you obviously were not a history major. mid-term elections almost always do this.

biggest gain in seats since the 1950's, I believe.  the amount of turnover was anything but common

and, you are spot-on, I was just another dumbass Kinesiology major (English minor)

[NeilT]

You are counting on social security?

Absolutely.

[Limey]

You are counting on social security?

Social Security being "bankrupt" is a misnomer and pure fear-mongering.  The date people often describe as the date it becomes "bankrupt" is actually the date that SS is projected to take in 1c less than it pays out.  That's not bankrupt by any definition, simply the date that incremental additional revenue will be required to fund the system.  Of course, any changes to the benefit structure in the meantime will move that date, and it's so subjective to legislation that it's impossible to rely on any projection from year to year.

Shit, a bad flu season will move the date.

[EasTexAstro]

Social Security being "bankrupt" is a misnomer and pure fear-mongering.  The date people often describe as the date it becomes "bankrupt" is actually the date that SS is projected to take in 1c less than it pays out.  That's not bankrupt by any definition, simply the date that incremental additional revenue will be required to fund the system.  Of course, any changes to the benefit structure in the meantime will move that date, and it's so subjective to legislation that it's impossible to rely on any projection from year to year.

Shit, a bad flu season will move the date.

I said nothing about that.  don't want to count on someone else having to pay for my retirement. If I get the SS I paid for, it is a nice bonus. If not, I will still be fine or still working. Maybe I will be under an underpass begging for money. I would love to count on a system that will take in less than it promises to pay out, but I doubt that is correct.

[Noe]

I think most are gobsmacked that the vote didn't go 5-4 along party lines.  I think Roberts got it right when he said "it's not our job to protect people from the consequences of their political choices".

Roberts is absolutely right in that assessment.

[Noe]

They can tax you for whatever they want. Don't elect idiots.

+1

[Noe]

Weren't there shenanigans about passing it when no one was there?

I remember the debate part of it being a closed door item that excluded members of congress who were opposed to the measure in the first place. That got a bad pub light shined on the President, who then decided to debate the issue after the law was passed. Made for some fun tv too... with Sen. Ryan taking the President to task on many of the line items in the mandate.

A healthy debate *after* the law is passed?  Why, that is a novel idea, my good fellow!

[Noe]

So let me get this straight... the American people elected their officials, were displeased with the results, and accordingly began electing different officials.

In the mean time, our justice system reviewed the law, determined it was a constitutional law and that the court's job was not to comment on the wisdom, but only the constitutionality, and upheld accordingly.

Why is everyone so up in arms?  THIS IS EXACTLY HOW THE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.

+1

[Noe]

No. Rasmussen has consistently shown that 54-60% of the public opposes the individual mandate (now a "tax").

I thought the breakdown was more like 17% approve the mandate (*as is*), about 13% opposed, and the rest don't really know what the fuss is about. So many on either side claim the great unwashed as being part of their gang because they either do not openly oppose the mandate or do not openly endorse it either.

It's called being an American (and loving my reality tv, don't make my life more complicated than that!)

[Noe]

And yet only 37% wanted it overturned, with 40% saying they had "mixed feelings".

+1

[Guinness]

I remember the debate part of it being a closed door item that excluded members of congress who were opposed to the measure in the first place.
A healthy debate *after* the law is passed?  Why, that is a novel idea, my good fellow!

I'm not recalling this or finding anything about it on Google.

[Noe]

I'm not recalling this or finding anything about it on Google.

I can find it for you if you'd like.

[Noe]

I can find it for you if you'd like.

Wow, first try too!

http://www.cassyfiano.com/2010/01/most-transparent-administration-ever-to-hold-secret-closed-door-meetings-on-health-care

[Ron Brand]

Wow, first try too!

http://www.cassyfiano.com/2010/01/most-transparent-administration-ever-to-hold-secret-closed-door-meetings-on-health-care

With all due respect, that is a partisan article that attempts to use a frozen point of a continually evolving process as some sort of inflammatory rallying point. Maneuvers like this are part and parcel of the legislative process and have been used by both sides for decades. To explain this particular point, from the NY Times on the same day, January 5, 2010:

Even as Democrats made plans to reconcile the bills, Republicans renewed their criticism of the legislation, which they have pledged to fight to the end.

Although Congress routinely reconciles major legislation without formal conference proceedings, Republicans seized on a request by C-Span, the public access television network, to broadcast the closed-door talks between House and Senate Democrats as evidence that Democrats were being less than transparent.

The Democrats, including Ms. Pelosi, dismissed that criticism, noting that Republicans were simply out to kill the legislation. And they noted that the full text of the House bill, for instance, has been posted on the Internet since before it was adopted on Nov. 7.

Reconciliation between the two chambers can be accomplished in a number of ways, as outlined by Bill Lucey in the Huffington Post.

The path they took was chosen because it was clear that no Republican would vote for the bill in any form. They pledged to do everything they could to derail it. In fact, when the final vote was taken, it was after more common parliamentary tricks had been played:

The Senate voted after running through an obstacle course of Republican amendments and procedural objections, which kept lawmakers working through Wednesday night until 3:30 a.m. Thursday.

Republicans, raising procedural challenges, identified small flaws that struck out two minor provisions. Those changes forced the bill to be sent back to the House one more time.

The vote came after Senate Democrats defeated more than 40 Republican amendments intended to delay or derail the legislation, including proposals related to insurance coverage of erectile dysfunction drugs for convicted sex offenders, the legality of same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia, and gun rights.

It is the right, and perhaps the duty, of the minority to do what they can to support their point of view in politics. This kind of stuff happens every single day in legislatures across the country and in Congress. It's part of the game. It's wrong to seize on some small part of that and cry 'FOUL!' because I assure you, things you might think are egregious are going on from both sides during every contentious debate. Singling out one instance takes it out of context to try to demonize the other side and that's just cheap theater.

[Mr. Happy]

I thought the breakdown was more like 17% approve the mandate (*as is*), about 13% opposed, and the rest don't really know what the fuss is about. So many on either side claim the great unwashed as being part of their gang because they either do not openly oppose the mandate or do not openly endorse it either.

It's called being an American (and loving my reality tv, don't make my life more complicated than that!)

Not according to Rasmussen, who is, for my money, the best political pollster bar none.

[Ron Brand]

Not according to Rasmussen, who is, for my money, the best political pollster bar none.

I'm surprised, because I've heard very much the contrary. Rasmussen is said to be skewed heavily to the right and I've seen some pretty surprising backup to that. None of which I have handy, but I have seen quite a bit of it and from pollsters who are trying to prove who is and who isn't reliable, not The Left vs. The Right.

Regardless, it would be extraordinarily difficult to get a true snapshot on this issue because a) so few people really know that much about the legislation; b) polls are continually taken on a partisan basis to support or inflame a conclusion; and c) the legislation is so complex you can't craft a simple snapshot-type poll for people to answer. They'd be responding to what they've heard in the media, which frankly is a bunch of yelling and damn little explaining.

[Noe]

With all due respect, that is a partisan article that attempts to use a frozen point of a continually evolving process as some sort of inflammatory rallying point.

Not the blogger, the message from C-SPAN. I can find others if you don't like or wish to shoot the messenger. However, the point was that it didn't happen... which of course, the point is, it did happen that way. And all I was saying was that was the hallabaloo during the debates... not that I agree or disagree with any of the maneuverings.

Most important legislation to come down the pipe since Roosevelt's days in office and they choose to go behind close doors.  Cool!

[Noe]

Not according to Rasmussen, who is, for my money, the best political pollster bar none.

You may be right, but the most bi-partisan polling I've heard is not many people care or understand enough about the law to take a side one way or another.

[Ron Brand]

Not the blogger, the message from C-SPAN. I can find others if you don't like or wish to shoot the messenger.

Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough. Using the reconciliation of the bills as some example of nefarious action is bullshit; it's the common course of action because partisan politics have made it so. If the opposition only intends to delay or kill the measure, there is no reason for them to be involved in the reconciliation of the two bills. The actual points of debate in this case occurred between those who had agreed to the bills. If they had decided to go outside the bounds of the two bills, which I believe they did do, then that was all handled in the bright light of day. You have to do this for no other reason than the members of Congress get really upset if you don't treat them like the royalty many of them believe they are, and their votes are necessary for passage.

It's misleading to refer to this stage of the process as "the debate part of it being a closed door item that excluded members of congress who were opposed to the measure in the first place." The incredibly extensive debate on the two bills, which was very public and went on for months in the open, had already been concluded when the bills passed.  It's also misleading to say, "That got a bad pub light shined on the President, who then decided to debate the issue after the law was passed. Made for some fun tv too... with Sen. Ryan taking the President to task on many of the line items in the mandate." What it was was showboating to try to please the base and to further the inflammatory actions of the opposition's supporters.

It's a very common tactic to cry that things were done behind closed doors. In fact, some of it always is, and most of it very definitely is not. That's politics.

[Ron Brand]

Not the blogger, the message from C-SPAN. I can find others if you don't like or wish to shoot the messenger. However, the point was that it didn't happen... which of course, the point is, it did happen that way. And all I was saying was that was the hallabaloo during the debates... not that I agree or disagree with any of the maneuverings.

Most important legislation to come down the pipe since Roosevelt's days in office and they choose to go behind close doors.  Cool!

That's not what happened, Noe. That's what the Republican machine tells you. The debate, for all intents and purposes, was over long before the reconciliation between the two bills took place. Since it was already material that had been debated on, it wasn't necessary to invite a bunch of people who only intended to kill it to a process in which they couldn't kill it, only slow things down even more. It was not a precedent, it is common practice regardless of the importance of the legislation.

The actual debate, on the real parts of the bills that became law, took place in the months before and it was all completely open and public, as much as any legislative discussion is.

[Noe]

Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly enough. Using the reconciliation of the bills as some example of nefarious action is bullshit; it's the common course of action because partisan politics have made it so.

Not sure I said it was bs. I said it happened and that was the outcry. I have no desire to defend anyone in politics. Maybe you do, but I certainly don't.

[Noe]

That's not what happened, Noe. That's what the Republican machine tells you. The debate, for all intents and purposes, was over long before the reconciliation between the two bills took place. Since it was already material that had been debated on, it wasn't necessary to invite a bunch of people who only intended to kill it to a process in which they couldn't kill it, only slow things down even more. It was not a precedent, it is common practice regardless of the importance of the legislation.

The actual debate, on the real parts of the bills that became law, took place in the months before and it was all completely open and public, as much as any legislative discussion is.

RB, I don't care to defend anyone in politics. You do. So therein lies the difference. What I did is answer BD's question about the outcry that did happen. Pete said he couldn't find it, I told him I would. You don't like something, not sure what... but you're arguing with the wrong person because I didn't say one side is a villain, the other side angels. If you want my opinion, all of them need to get their asses kicked. All. Of. Them!

BTW - you're partisan... right?

[Ron Brand]

I don't know why you think I'm defending a side. I'm defending the process from the bullshit that seeks to make it into something else. I clearly said that both sides do this - these are the tools in the toolbox and the rule book that they are allowed to use (amendments, delay tactics, etc.). What I don't like are the people who misrepresent some part of the process as being something nefarious when it isn't. It's bullshit and it only serves to further destroy people's perception of something that is very important. When that perception gets destroyed, the participation goes away and the participation is the only thing that can make government work.

What you did was repeat and further this willful spreading of misinformation that contributes to that destruction. In this case, you repeated a Republican talking point spread through one of their media organs, the Washington Times. I'm not calling our Republicans on this - both sides do it, it's just that this particular one came from that angle.

In this case, what was repeated is a misrepresentation of the truth, designed to inflame those who oppose that legislation. It's not even a kill shot, it's just another brick in the wall of lies that both sides use to influence public opinion. That's what I don't like, the lying and half-truths that are skewed, that's what gets to me - the cheap tricks that are transparent to me because I've worked in that arena for 25+ years and I know it. I want people to be better than that, to present things and judge them on their merits after being informed, not to be hoodwinked and bullshitted into a sound bite's worth of involvement on important issues because that's the loudest, most prevalent yelling that goes on in the middle of the cacophony.

I understand hardball politics very well. I appreciate the chess play, the moves that are all but invisible yet they force outcomes. This isn't that.

I'm not taking sides. I'm not being partisan. I don't like the mud in the water.

[Noe]

I'm not taking sides. I'm not being partisan. I don't like the mud in the water.

What I don't understand is why you think it was important to add the ammendment when all I was doing is answering Ben's question. There was an outcry that called into question the promise of transparency (something that has cropped up recently with the "executive privileges"). Yes, we can eval it and say, "hey, they all do it!" (which was quickly the response from the white house when they were called on transparency on it). But I wasn't trying to make an analysis of the validity of the outcry, just that this was the reason from said outcry.

Thanks for the backup though, I appreciate it. Just wanted to make sure you were saying I had anything in mind other than to mention it (and also say I could find it easily using my limited google skills). Of course, you are accusing me of something with "willfully", which of course is your damn sensitivity and political bent kicking in. Chill.

You're just a bit tightly wound when you *think* someone really cares about this political wrangling. Perhaps we can talk about Troy Aikman's sexual preference instead?

[BizidyDizidy]

To further complicate things, I was actually remembering something about a vote being take when everyone was gone for christmas. I could've just dreamed it though.

[Ron Brand]

Of course, you are accusing me of something with "willfully", which of course is your damn sensitivity and political bent kicking in. Chill.

You're just a bit tightly wound when you *think* someone really cares about this political wrangling. Perhaps we can talk about Troy Aikman's sexual preference instead?

Your accusation is really infuriating. What you did was repeat and further the willful spreading of misinformation - you did this by regurgitating a talking point disseminated by the spin machine instead of actually understanding the legislative process and knowing what really did go on. I didn't say you were willful, I'm saying that the spin machine worked because you accepted their talking point as reality and it is now burrowed into your mind as Fact. I'm busy right now, but I will try once again to explain this soon.

[Limey]

I said nothing about that.  don't want to count on someone else having to pay for my retirement. If I get the SS I paid for, it is a nice bonus. If not, I will still be fine or still working. Maybe I will be under an underpass begging for money. I would love to count on a system that will take in less than it promises to pay out, but I doubt that is correct.

I'm not banking on it either.  However, for many people its the difference between a roof and homelessness.

[Limey]

And yet only 37% wanted it overturned, with 40% saying they had "mixed feelings".

Romney is on record as wanting to keep all the good bits of the law that have already been implemented.  He wants rid that that pesky mandate...which is what pays for the whole thing.  I wonder why the mandate is the bit of the law that's wildly unpopular...

[subnuclear]

Most important legislation to come down the pipe since Roosevelt's days in office and they choose to go behind close doors.  Cool!

You may want to review the legislation passed in 1964-1966.

[JimR]

You may want to review the legislation passed in 1964-1966.

absolutely correct. this law pales in comparison.

[Noe]

To further complicate things, I was actually remembering something about a vote being take when everyone was gone for christmas. I could've just dreamed it though.

That was a different situation, but I'm hestitant to point to references for it because politics can cause skin rashes for some people. I'd rather say that I can't help you with that. Sorry.

[Noe]

Your accusation is really infuriating. What you did was repeat and further the willful spreading of misinformation - you did this by regurgitating a talking point disseminated by the spin machine instead of actually understanding the legislative process and knowing what really did go on. I didn't say you were willful, I'm saying that the spin machine worked because you accepted their talking point as reality and it is now burrowed into your mind as Fact. I'm busy right now, but I will try once again to explain this soon.

You need to take a bathroom break and unhinge the panties from the wadded up shape their in, Don Quixote. You really think people here are stupid, correct? That people here can't think for themselves and see political spins... right?

[Andyzipp]

Since I deal with this crap as part of my job, I can tell you for the 180 million or so individuals who have employer sponsored coverage, yesterday was much ado about nothing, unless you were holding out hope that PPACA as a whole would be thrown out.

To my jaundiced eye, it still looks like the plan is to limit employer sponsored medical benefits (60% valuation by 2018) by penalty or tax in order to make a public option more desired.  But so much of the future activity around this is still undefined from a regulatory standpoint, who knows what the actual state will turn out to be.

[Ron Brand]

You really think people here are stupid, correct? That people here can't think for themselves and see political spins... right?

I never, ever said that and shame on you for trying to say I did.

[Ron Brand]

Since I deal with this crap as part of my job, I can tell you for the 180 million or so individuals who have employer sponsored coverage, yesterday was much ado about nothing, unless you were holding out hope that PPACA as a whole would be thrown out.

To my jaundiced eye, it still looks like the plan is to limit employer sponsored medical benefits (60% valuation by 2018) by penalty or tax in order to make a public option more desired.  But so much of the future activity around this is still undefined from a regulatory standpoint, who knows what the actual state will turn out to be.

I think you're right. There are so many moving parts to this thing, who knows what we're going to end up with.

[Andyzipp]

Romney is on record as wanting to keep all the good bits of the law that have already been implemented.  He wants rid that that pesky mandate...which is what pays for the whole thing.  I wonder why the mandate is the bit of the law that's wildly unpopular...

In general, people don't like the perception that they're required to do ANYTHING. 

[BudGirl]

Since I deal with this crap as part of my job, I can tell you for the 180 million or so individuals who have employer sponsored coverage, yesterday was much ado about nothing, unless you were holding out hope that PPACA as a whole would be thrown out.

To my jaundiced eye, it still looks like the plan is to limit employer sponsored medical benefits (60% valuation by 2018) by penalty or tax in order to make a public option more desired.  But so much of the future activity around this is still undefined from a regulatory standpoint, who knows what the actual state will turn out to be.

I find it interesting as a state employee.

[Noe]

I never, ever said that and shame on you for trying to say I did.

Why then would I "willfully" try to dissuade them? Do you think I think people in here are stupid? (Now I know how Andy felt with his "short bus" episode).

[jbm]

I never, ever said that and shame on you for trying to say I did.

You didn't.  Trying to inject honesty into a political discussion is a worthy, but often fruitless endevour.  However, it is encouraging that you try.  

[JimR]

You need to take a bathroom break and unhinge the panties from the wadded up shape their in, Don Quixote. You really think people here are stupid, correct? That people here can't think for themselves and see political spins... right?

this kind of crap should be beneath you, Noe. you are supposed to be a leader here.

[Limey]

To my jaundiced eye, it still looks like the plan is to limit employer sponsored medical benefits (60% valuation by 2018) by penalty or tax in order to make a public option more desired.  But so much of the future activity around this is still undefined from a regulatory standpoint, who knows what the actual state will turn out to be.

My company has an excellent benefits group, and they have had an "Obamacare" assessment program going since the day the act was signed.  They can run the numbers on any employer to tell them what this means to them.

But your overall point is correct.  The act isn't about those of us blessed with a good employer-sponsored plan - apart from the part where we no longer have to pay for people who choose not to buy insurance and rely on the emergency room care we provide.  It's for those who are buying for a small employer or as an individual, and those who can't afford it at all.

It's also a massive boost for insurance companies, whose books will now be swelled with premium dollars from the aforementioned healthy folks who don't need a lot of care.  That's the quid pro quo in the act - for limiting their options in avoiding the unhealthy, they get healthy customers gift-wrapped with a bow on top.

[Noe]

I want people to be better than that, to present things and judge them on their merits after being informed, not to be hoodwinked and bullshitted into a sound bite's worth of involvement on important issues because that's the loudest, most prevalent yelling that goes on in the middle of the cacophony.

Directed at me or platform pouding? You decide.

[homer]

Romney is on record as wanting to keep all the good bits of the law that have already been implemented.  He wants rid that that pesky mandate...which is what pays for the whole thing.  I wonder why the mandate is the bit of the law that's wildly unpopular...

Jon Stewart couldn't have said it better himself.

[Limey]

Jon Stewart couldn't have said it better himself.

He did, in fact.  Or at least, he ran the clip of Romney saying this.

[Noe]

Be careful... soundbites rather than informed discussion is not allowed here. Jon Stewart be damned.

[Ron Brand]

Why then would I "willfully" try to dissuade them? Do you think I think people in here are stupid? (Now I know how Andy felt with his "short bus" episode).

I never said you willfully tried to dissuade anyone. Read what I said, man.

The willful spreading comes from the spin machine. It works, because people see that and accept it as truth and pass it on. Doesn't matter which side of the aisle, they both do it.

I'm a fan of the process. I dont like it when the process becomes bastardized and misrepresented in the service of furthering an agenda. Familiarity with the process helps one to understand when this is going on. It's that simple.

You keep trying to make this personal and to put words in my mouth. I'm not sure why.

[Noe]

Because I answered a simple question with a simple answer (which someone asked if I could provide a link to the story). I did, albeit, not to a blogger you would tend to review (or maybe you do). That is all I was doing. I wasn't sure why all the other stuff had to come into play. I don't think I was making a political statement one way or another. I tend to think everyone here is smart enough (and they've proven this over and over to me) to think for themselves.

All the rest of the stuff you provided is more in line with politics and that is really strange (and funny to me). I am the *last* person who cares to have a political discussion. With anyone of any side. Not interested.

[Andyzipp]

My company has an excellent benefits group, and they have had an "Obamacare" assessment program going since the day the act was signed.  They can run the numbers on any employer to tell them what this means to them.

I assume they can tell me in generalities what is going to happen, but I have at least three interested parties who have slightly different beliefs in what the future holds.

It looks like, at best, premiums are going to go up, and the level of medical benefit we can provide (assuming we want to avoid additional penalties/taxes) is going to go down over the next 4-5 years.

I would just as soon we stop pussy-footing around and be presented a true social option, rather than this half-assed attempt to keep the insurance companies, employers and medical community placated. 

[Ron Brand]

Directed at me or platform pouding? You decide.

No, I'll tell you what I meant. I meant that I wish things could be debated on their merits and not subject to the blurring that spin does. I know that isn't possible, it's just the pie in the sky optimism I have because our system is such a great thing.

No platform pounding and no direction at you, Noe.

[Bench]

You need to take a bathroom break and unhinge the panties from the wadded up shape their in, Don Quixote. You really think people here are stupid, correct? That people here can't think for themselves and see political spins... right?

Good grief, Noe. Stop acting like an asshole for no reason whatsoever. Everything RB has said is the very opposite of inflammatory. You are the only person injecting venom into this thread and there's no reason for it. Take a step back and review your discourse.

[MusicMan]

  But so much of the future activity around this is still undefined from a regulatory standpoint, who knows what the actual state will turn out to be.

This.

[Limey]

I would just as soon we stop pussy-footing around and be presented a true social option, rather than this half-assed attempt to keep the insurance companies, employers and medical community placated. 

This is the part I don't understand about the right-wing insistence on perpetuating the employer-based coverage model.  It's a huge drag on employers to provide healthcare, it limits personal mobility, restricts entrepreneurship and reduces the competitiveness of US manufacturers versus companies operating in countries where the government takes on this burden*.

* which is everywhere else in the industrialised world.

[BizidyDizidy]

This is the part I don't understand about the right-wing insistence on perpetuating the employer-based coverage model.  It's a huge drag on employers to provide healthcare, it limits personal mobility, restricts entrepreneurship and reduces the competitiveness of US manufacturers versus companies operating in countries where the government takes on this burden*.

* which is everywhere else in the industrialised world.

I don't think it's fair to say it reduces competitiveness - it has to be paid for somehow (e.g. higher taxes), which all ends up flowing through one way or the other.

Arguments that it hinders entrepreneurship, is disproportionately difficult for small businesses, etc. make more sense.

[subnuclear]

Its a small thing, but my company's HQ is in New Mexico, so I get insurance which has great coverage in NM, but very spotty here. It would be nice to be able to buy my own insurance at the same price my company does with the same assurances of coverage. I'm not sure the PPACA gets us there, but it would be nice if that's how things ended up going.

[Limey]

Its a small thing, but my company's HQ is in New Mexico, so I get insurance which has great coverage in NM, but very spotty here. It would be nice to be able to buy my own insurance at the same price my company does with the same assurances of coverage. I'm not sure the PPACA gets us there, but it would be nice if that's how things ended up going.

The exchanges are meant to provide a vehicle for individuals to procure good, cheap coverage.  Proof will be in the pudding...

[Ron Brand]

Because I answered a simple question with a simple answer (which someone asked if I could provide a link to the story). I did, albeit, not to a blogger you would tend to review (or maybe you do). That is all I was doing. I wasn't sure why all the other stuff had to come into play. I don't think I was making a political statement one way or another. I tend to think everyone here is smart enough (and they've proven this over and over to me) to think for themselves.

All the rest of the stuff you provided is more in line with politics and that is really strange (and funny to me). I am the *last* person who cares to have a political discussion. With anyone of any side. Not interested.

That's not what you did. You provided a link to what you thought addressed Biz's question, andthen included a paraphrasing of that article, which actually was misleading spin designed to be passed along as fact.

I remember the debate part of it being a closed door item that excluded members of congress who were opposed to the measure in the first place.

Then you added your own editorializing, expanding on that meme that the bill was debated in secret, which is actually not true.

That got a bad pub light shined on the President, who then decided to debate the issue after the law was passed. Made for some fun tv too... with Sen. Ryan taking the President to task on many of the line items in the mandate.

A healthy debate *after* the law is passed?  Why, that is a novel idea, my good fellow!

When I tried to point out that this was misleading, you don't see my point. I tried to clarify, and then you change to calling me 'partisan' and therefore my argument must be political:

RB, I don't care to defend anyone in politics. You do. So therein lies the difference. What I did is answer BD's question about the outcry that did happen. Pete said he couldn't find it, I told him I would. You don't like something, not sure what... but you're arguing with the wrong person because I didn't say one side is a villain, the other side angels. If you want my opinion, all of them need to get their asses kicked. All. Of. Them!

BTW - you're partisan... right?

Again, missing my point which is to support the sanctity of the process and oppose the obfuscation.  I tried again to clarify that, but you circle back to your original support for the spin:

What I don't understand is why you think it was important to add the ammendment when all I was doing is answering Ben's question. There was an outcry that called into question the promise of transparency (something that has cropped up recently with the "executive privileges"). Yes, we can eval it and say, "hey, they all do it!" (which was quickly the response from the white house when they were called on transparency on it). But I wasn't trying to make an analysis of the validity of the outcry, just that this was the reason from said outcry.

From there, you misread my words as accusing you of being willful in spreading misinformation. Then you start to get personal:

Of course, you are accusing me of something with "willfully", which of course is your damn sensitivity and political bent kicking in. Chill.

You're just a bit tightly wound when you *think* someone really cares about this political wrangling.

Then you make it even more clearly personal:

You need to take a bathroom break and unhinge the panties from the wadded up shape their in, Don Quixote. You really think people here are stupid, correct? That people here can't think for themselves and see political spins... right?

You again attempt to put words in my mouth, which I never said or even implied. And now we've circled back to your initial support for the article.

[Noe]

Thanks Ron, me not very smart. It's this part that I disagree with: "andthen included a paraphrasing of that article, which actually was misleading spin designed to be passed along as fact." I didn't provide the link to answer Ben's question. I never intended to provide a link. Pete asked if I could find one and I did (albeit, a skewed one, but it did touch on C-SPANS concern, which was the point I tried to make... nothing political in that). I didn't think I paraphrased anything, I was trying to make a joke. I failed, you pounced.

[Noe]

Ah, Bench... STFU! (Is that asshole enough for you?)

[JimR]

Thanks Ron... I take back what I said. Me not very smart.

i think it should be "I am," not "Me."

[Bench]

Ah, Bench... STFU! (Is that asshole enough for you?)

Hey, at least you have a reason for it this time.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Since I deal with this crap as part of my job, I can tell you for the 180 million or so individuals who have employer sponsored coverage, yesterday was much ado about nothing, unless you were holding out hope that PPACA as a whole would be thrown out.

To my jaundiced eye, it still looks like the plan is to limit employer sponsored medical benefits (60% valuation by 2018) by penalty or tax in order to make a public option more desired.  But so much of the future activity around this is still undefined from a regulatory standpoint, who knows what the actual state will turn out to be.

I have had someone explain it to me that the one guaranteed result of this is that those of us with healtchare now will pay more, in the future, for coverage equal to what we currently have in place. Also, if the other restrictions introduced with this healthcare law proceed, our ability to utilize pre-tax dollars for our health care costs will be further reduced which, in essence, is a net tax increase. 

The other thing people in this country don't like is being told we have to pay more for less.

[MusicMan]

The other thing people in this country don't like is being told we have to pay more for less.

Get used to it, given our debt issues.

[Guinness]

Get used to it, given our debt issues.

Let the tax cuts expire for those making over 250K and that problem goes away.

SP, have your healthcare premiums ever gone down?

[Ron Brand]

Pete asked if I could find one and I did (albeit, a skewed one, but it did touch on C-SPANS concern, which was the point I tried to make... nothing political in that).

I used to do a fair amount of work with C-SPAN. Their focus is to put a camera everywhere. They have a lot of reasons for that, and Brian Lamb's ego is not the slightest one of those reasons.

[MusicMan]

Let the tax cuts expire for those making over 250K and that problem goes away.

That's like saying that if the Astros sign one pitcher we're World Series favorites.

[Guinness]

That's like saying that if the Astros sign one pitcher we're World Series favorites.

Except not really: http://timothymichaellaw.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/deficit-causes.png

[Andyzipp]

Its a small thing, but my company's HQ is in New Mexico, so I get insurance which has great coverage in NM, but very spotty here. It would be nice to be able to buy my own insurance at the same price my company does with the same assurances of coverage. I'm not sure the PPACA gets us there, but it would be nice if that's how things ended up going.

The power will be in the number of people in the exchanges.  Your employer gets rates based on a number of things, but in general number of lives and the "experience" of those lives are the biggest drivers in cost.

If you get enough people in the exchanges, then it should be competitive.  The exchanges will be given EVERY opportunity to succeed, IMO.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

SP, have your healthcare premiums ever gone down?

I fail to see how this justifies the government pushing that cost higher.  

[Noe]

Agree on C-SPAN. There's is not a political as much practical reason for cameras in every room. Much to the chagrin of some who would like transparency at the upmost levels (which personally, I think is unattainable and never going to happen, no matter how much it's promised in a campaign... but not a problem with me).

[Guinness]

I fail to see how this justifies the government pushing that cost higher.  

I have had someone explain it to me that the one guaranteed result of this is that those of us with healtchare now will pay more, in the future, for coverage equal to what we currently have in place. Also, if the other restrictions introduced with this healthcare law proceed, our ability to utilize pre-tax dollars for our health care costs will be further reduced which, in essence, is a net tax increase.

It doesn't but how did that someone explain why premiums will go up with more people paying into the system? 

[Ron Brand]

Agree on C-SPAN. There's is not a political as much practical reason for cameras in every room. Much to the chagrin of some who would like transparency at the upmost levels (which personally, I think is unattainable and never going to happen, no matter how much it's promised in a campaign... but not a problem with me).

A lot of transparency is great. There's some things that can't be accomplished if there is an audience. That may not be a popular opinion though.

[pots]

Except not really: http://timothymichaellaw.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/deficit-causes.png

Help me here.  How does the tax cuts money double from now until 2019?  Are they expecting the rich to be making twice as much in 2019 then they are today?  (and the government to be spending exactly the same)?

[S.P. Rodriguez]

It doesn't but how did that someone explain why premiums will go up with more people paying into the system? 

It is primarily due to the penalty placed on "cadillac plans".  For most people working in corporate america that still have quality coverage that isn't running them about $1000/mo for a family of 4, their plan will probably fall under this category.  The result is, if you want the same coverage, you the consumer must absorb a greater share of the premium cost or accept the lower level of coverage while having to pay more out of pocket for portions of the care you used to receive under your insurance.

The other possibility is the increased size of the risk pool that insurers use to aggregate and assess cost.   It is a dangerous assumption that by adding more people into a "benefits risk pool" that you reduce the average cost of coverage.  To the contrary, you could very easily increase the average cost of coverage with this change.  Using medicaid or government sponsored high risk pools will not protect you from the overall cost increase.  Do you think the government will just eat the cost of the increase without increasing taxes to pay for it?  Or do you expect healthcare providers to care less about their bottom line?  Or your employer? 

Even if the government strong-arms the insurance industry to provide low premiums for high-risk patience, they cannot prohibit the insurers from offsetting this cost by moving it to you and me.  And if they did prohibit their ability to offset costs, how long do you expect insurance companies to remain in business when they can no longer make a profit? 

[jbm]

I fail to see how this justifies the government pushing that cost higher.  

I know little about this, but if large chunks of the population would no longer get their care through more expensive emergency room care, which is ultimately paid for by the insured, then I really don't know why the Health Care Act alone should increase costs.  If costs do indeed increase, there might well be other causitive factors.  

[Limey]

A lot of transparency is great. There's some things that can't be accomplished if there is an audience. That may not be a popular opinion though.

24/7 televised preening is all we'd get.  And there's already a Bravo channel.

[Limey]

I know little about this, but if large chunks of the population would no longer get their care through more expensive emergency room care, which is ultimately paid for by the insured, then I really don't know why the Health Care Act alone should increase costs.  If costs do indeed increase, there might well be other causitive factors.  

I think the elements of the Act that are intended to at least dampen increases in healthcare costs, if not lower them, are:

* More insured people means less uninsured using emergency rooms for general healthcare (as you stated)
* More insured people - and co-pay/coinsurance free check-ups including mammograms - means better general health (through prevention) and lower costs overall
* Healthy people forced to buy insurance, adding dollars to the pool without taking much out in claims
* Insurers being required to spend a minimum percentage of premiums on actual care, which limits their ability to trouser otherwise unnecessary premium increases
* Exchanges adding competition and bulk purchasing power to the individual buyer market

[Bench]

I know little about this, but if large chunks of the population would no longer get their care through more expensive emergency room care, which is ultimately paid for by the insured, then I really don't know why the Health Care Act alone should increase costs.  If costs do indeed increase, there might well be other causitive factors.  

My guess is that insurance companies think that the ability to outright deny certain high risk people and charge other risky people more than their the neighbors is more cost-effective then increasing the pool with those who don't currently have coverage.

[Andyzipp]

My guess is that insurance companies think that the ability to outright deny certain high risk people and charge other risky people more than their the neighbors is more cost-effective then increasing the pool with those who don't currently have coverage.

They absolutely think that.

[Bench]

They absolutely think that.

Which is why we now have a law saying they can't do that.

[Ron Brand]

24/7 televised preening is all we'd get.  And there's already a Bravo channel.

There's a lot of research devoted to this, which we had to use when we went gavel-to-gavel with the Texas Legislature in '91 or '93 or whenever it was. Turns out there is an initial period of grandstanding, then it drops off to whatever the level it was beforehand pretty quickly. That's a generalization though, because each legislative body has its own idiosyncrasies.

[Limey]

There's a lot of research devoted to this, which we had to use when we went gavel-to-gavel with the Texas Legislature in '91 or '93 or whenever it was. Turns out there is an initial period of grandstanding, then it drops off to whatever the level it was beforehand pretty quickly. That's a generalization though, because each legislative body has its own idiotsyncrasies.

FIFY

[Ron Brand]

I hoped you'd see that one.

[pots]

I think the elements of the Act that are intended to at least dampen increases in healthcare costs, if not lower them, are:

* More insured people means less uninsured using emergency rooms for general healthcare (as you stated)
* More insured people - and co-pay/coinsurance free check-ups including mammograms - means better general health (through prevention) and lower costs overall
* Healthy people forced to buy insurance, adding dollars to the pool without taking much out in claims
* Insurers being required to spend a minimum percentage of premiums on actual care, which limits their ability to trouser otherwise unnecessary premium increases
* Exchanges adding competition and bulk purchasing power to the individual buyer market

 - I think this assumes Doctors who supply preventative care are just waiting around for the next patient to walk through the door.  Everytime my wife make an appointment she has to book 2 months out now.
 - It also assumes the unisnured are going to pay for it.  The poor will be paid for by the government.
 - It also assumes the mandate will cause people who can afford insurance to purchase it.  You are a contractor making 100 k a year.  You can pay 1k in penalties (2.5 k in penalties in 2016) or pay 8k+ for heath insurance.  Knowing with the new rules, you can just walk up to an insurance comapny and they have to take you and your pre-existing condition.  Hmmm, which to choose...

[subnuclear]

The interesting Oregon Health Study recently has shown some results of their short term, randomized study of uninsured people who recently got Medicaid-style insurance compared to a control group of uninsured. In the study, they report that people who just got insurance received a lot more services than they would have through a clinic or an emergency room, and those increased services offset the inefficiency of emergency room care by a significant amount. The study has only covered a couple of years (or maybe one year), so the long term benefits, if they exist, haven't shown up. Also, healthy people tend to be more productive, so that's another benefit that doesn't show up in the study.

In any case, the cheapest thing would be to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid and not give anyone anything, but not many are suggesting that so its not about doing what's cheapest.

[Limey]

My guess is that insurance companies think that the ability to outright deny certain high risk people and charge other risky people more than their the neighbors is more cost-effective then increasing the pool with those who don't currently have coverage.

Insurance - non-health-related - is my game.  The principle is that each party contributes premium to the pool commensurate with they risk it brings.  Insurance companies have taken that a step further by trying to weed out the really bad risks - which is why, for example, you can't buy flood insurance in Houston from the commercial market but get it instead from the Federal Government.

From a pure insurance standpoint, what Obamacare has done is legislate that insurers who want to write healthcare (and they do) cannot deny anyone coverage.  What the Act does not do, is legislate how much they can charge.  So insurers are free to jack up deductibles and co-pays and coinsurance and, of course premiums, on those chronically sick and riddled with pre-existing conditions.  Or are they...?

The Act legislates that insurers are allowed a maximum amount of every premium dollar for overhead.  The rest must be spent on care.  If they overcharge, they have to return the overage to policyholders.  In this way, if an insurer jams a cancer survivor with high premiums and such high deductibles and coinsurance that they barely get to make a claim, all that high premium counts against the care to overhead ratio.  Too much of that, and everyone, particularly the most selected against, get a refund.  It's actually a pretty smart dampening feature.

[Noe]

24/7 televised preening is all we'd get.  And there's already a Bravo channel.

Almost to the point now where a media director is a cabinet level position for the administration (any administration, not just this one). A balance of stealth with openness is key, but probably not obtainable per se. One thing is for sure, technology today allows for less and less stealth and more people involvement. Think Iran college students sending out tweets about their protest against the government. Think Hillary Clinton visiting China and being thrown into a situation she was not prepared to handle with dissident Chen Guangcheng.

Seems to me for a government to avoid transparency, they'd almost have to be a tightly closed wall to the rest of the world. I'm looking at you North Korea.

[subnuclear]

- I think this assumes Doctors who supply preventative care are just waiting around for the next patient to walk through the door.  Everytime my wife make an appointment she has to book 2 months out now.
 - It also assumes the unisnured are going to pay for it.  The poor will be paid for by the government.
 - It also assumes the mandate will cause people who can afford insurance to purchase it.  You are a contractor making 100 k a year.  You can pay 1k in penalties (2.5 k in penalties in 2016) or pay 8k+ for heath insurance.  Knowing with the new rules, you can just walk up to an insurance comapny and they have to take you and your pre-existing condition.  Hmmm, which to choose...

I believe there is a waiting period from when you begin coverage to when it kicks in to prevent people from picking up and dropping health insurance constantly. Having trouble finding a reference, so may be wrong.

[Limey]

In any case, the cheapest thing would be to get rid of Medicare and Medicaid and not give anyone anything, but not many are suggesting that so its not about doing what's cheapest.

Actually, I'd argue the opposite.  The cost to the government in lost revenue - as people to sick to work stop paying taxes and force relatives to stop working (and paying taxes) to care for them - would be catastrophic.

[EasTexAstro]

- I think this assumes Doctors who supply preventative care are just waiting around for the next patient to walk through the door.  Everytime my wife make an appointment she has to book 2 months out now.
 - It also assumes the unisnured are going to pay for it.  The poor will be paid for by the government.
 - It also assumes the mandate will cause people who can afford insurance to purchase it.  You are a contractor making 100 k a year.  You can pay 1k in penalties (2.5 k in penalties in 2016) or pay 8k+ for heath insurance.  Knowing with the new rules, you can just walk up to an insurance comapny and they have to take you and your pre-existing condition.  Hmmm, which to choose...

Um, The government doesn't have any money. Taxpayers will pay for it.

Form what I understand, paying the penalties/tax, catastrophic insurance, and paying the doctor out of my own pocket is still cheaper than carrying private insurance.

[pots]

Um, The government doesn't have any money. Taxpayers will pay for it.

Form what I understand, paying the penalties/tax, catastrophic insurance, and paying the doctor out of my own pocket is still cheaper than carrying private insurance.

What you mean GM isn't making profits for the government?

[Bench]

Form what I understand, paying the penalties/tax, catastrophic insurance, and paying the doctor out of my own pocket is still cheaper than carrying private insurance.

What's the minimum amount of health insurance that one has to carry without being assessed a fee taxed?  I assume more than your catastrophic insurance based on what you're saying but how much more? (Coverage-wise not premium-wise)

[Limey]

Form what I understand, paying the penalties/tax, catastrophic insurance, and paying the doctor out of my own pocket is still cheaper than carrying private insurance.

This may be.  But paying to have something is usually better than paying not to have something.  A simple comparison of dollars spent isn't the whole equation.

[EasTexAstro]

Actually, I'd argue the opposite.  The cost to the government in lost revenue - as people to sick to work stop paying taxes and force relatives to stop working (and paying taxes) to care for them - would be catastrophic.

And as a conservative/libertarian type person, I believe this is why the ACA is terrible.

Healthcare needs to be free market or full on socialist. The ACA is making it a bad mix.

[EasTexAstro]

What you mean GM isn't making profits for the government?

Touche.

[Mr. Happy]

I'm surprised, because I've heard very much the contrary. Rasmussen is said to be skewed heavily to the right and I've seen some pretty surprising backup to that. None of which I have handy, but I have seen quite a bit of it and from pollsters who are trying to prove who is and who isn't reliable, not The Left vs. The Right.

Regardless, it would be extraordinarily difficult to get a true snapshot on this issue because a) so few people really know that much about the legislation; b) polls are continually taken on a partisan basis to support or inflame a conclusion; and c) the legislation is so complex you can't craft a simple snapshot-type poll for people to answer. They'd be responding to what they've heard in the media, which frankly is a bunch of yelling and damn little explaining.

Polling is very tricky business as the results can be easily manipulated by the phrasing of the questions, which is why the CNN polls and those of the other television networks are so inaccurate. I follow a few pollsters who make their polling work public (many don't without a paid subscription), and of the ones that I see, Rasmussen almost always predicts the winner and the winning percentage the most accurately.

[pots]

This may be.  But paying to have something is usually better than paying not to have something.  A simple comparison of dollars spent isn't the whole equation.

Unless of course you can get insurance should you end up needing it, no matter what the pre-existing conditions

[EasTexAstro]

What's the minimum amount of health insurance that one has to carry without being assessed a fee taxed?  I assume more than your catastrophic insurance based on what you're saying but how much more? (Coverage-wise not premium-wise)

My accountant (read: wife) has run the numbers. I am not sure, and have no idea where to pull references from. You may ignore my statement as I can't back it up, but I trust my wife's numbers.

[Bench]

My accountant (read: wife) has run the numbers. I am not sure, and have no idea where to pull references from. You may ignore my statement as I can't back it up, but I trust my wife's numbers.

I'm not challenging your statement, I'm just curious to know what's the minimum coverage allowable under the ACA. 

[EasTexAstro]

This may be.  But paying to have something is usually better than paying not to have something.  A simple comparison of dollars spent isn't the whole equation.

I'm not sure I understand, and I am not trying to be argumentative. If I spend less, and get the same results, that isn't good?

[EasTexAstro]

I'm not challenging your statement, I'm just curious to know what's the minimum coverage allowable under the ACA. 

I really don't know. I'll try to get with my wife after work and see if she still has all the info.

[Bench]

I'm not sure I understand, and I am not trying to be argumentative. If I spend less, and get the same results, that isn't good?

It's the "same results" part that Limey is quibbling with.

[Bench]

I really don't know. I'll try to get with my wife after work and see if she still has all the info.

Nor do I.  If she (or anyone) knows I would be interested in the answer.

[Limey]

And as a conservative/libertarian type person, I believe this is why the ACA is terrible.

Healthcare needs to be free market or full on socialist. The ACA is making it a bad mix.

I agree that the ACA is a bad mix.  My druthers would have been the single payer option, i.e. Medicare / VA for all.

As for your libertarian leanings, that's fine.  I have them too (believe it or not).  However, certain risks are too large for the commercial insurance market to handle.  The list of government taxpayer-underwritten insurance is quite extensive, even in Texas:

* Flood
* Windstorm
* Nuclear
* War
* Terrorism
* Bank default (FDIC)

Every other industrialised nation adds "healthcare" to that list.

[Noe]

Healthcare needs to be free market or full on socialist.

Complete with heroin parks?

[Limey]

I'm not sure I understand, and I am not trying to be argumentative. If I spend less, and get the same results, that isn't good?

What I'm getting at is that paying the penalty is dead money, while paying the premium gets you broader insurance than you have now.

The issue many people, including some of those in professional risk management jobs, is that most of the time an insurance premium gets you a bunch of gobbledegook on too much paper and nothing else.  If you don't have a claim, you would have been better off not buying it.  Very true.  Yet people still buy (sometimes involuntarily, like collision liability), because what they have done is transferred their risk of loss to an insurance company.

That's the true value of an insurance policy.

[EasTexAstro]

What I'm getting at is that paying the penalty is dead money, while paying the premium gets you broader insurance than you have now.

The issue many people, including those in professional risk management jobs, is that most of the time an insurance premium gets you a bunch of gobbledegook on too much paper and nothing else.  If you don't have a claim, you would have been better off not buying it.  Very true.  Yet people still buy (sometimes involuntarily, like collision liability), because what they have done is transferred their risk of loss to an insurance company.

That's the true value of an insurance policy.

It is dead money, but I don't have a choice. It is a tax that I have to pay unless I purchase something I don't want to pay for.

I know these numbers are wrong, but I am guestimating the best I can:

$500/month to cover the family = $6000/yr
-or-
$1000 tax
$50/mo for catastrophic = $600/year
~$2500 for doctor care without insurance (on the high side for my family, but not unreasonable)
= $4100


So, $6000 (admittedly for fairly good coverage) vs. $4100 with the risk of a major injury or illness covered

...and, maybe, my catastrophic will be enough to negate the tax.

I can take the extra money and keep it in my health care fund for next year.

I do agree, though. It seems the ACA went to far and not far enough at the same time. I/m worried that trying to balance it between free market and socialism may actually make it worse and more expensive with all the regulation and paperwork.

[pots]

I agree that the ACA is a bad mix.  My druthers would have been the single payer option, i.e. Medicare / VA for all.

As for your libertarian leanings, that's fine.  I have them too (believe it or not).  However, certain risks are too large for the commercial insurance market to handle.  The list of government taxpayer-underwritten insurance is quite extensive, even in Texas:

* Flood
* Windstorm
* Nuclear
* War
* Terrorism
* Bank default (FDIC)

Every other industrialised nation adds "healthcare" to that list.

Is not the difference here is that the government is providing the service should the risk occur on one of these?  Like a war, terorist act, bank default etc.  In Health Insurance the private sector provides the service as the risk occurs.  So sovernment provided insurance leads to the government regulating health care providers.  And then the suppliers to the health care providers. So now the government runs the drug companies, hospitals, doctors, nurses, janitors, etc.  Medical malpractice would need to be regulated.  where does it end?  Jobs that cause more health risks should be regulated.  Food is a major factor in health.  Regulate all food.  So the farmers, grocery stores, transportation companies, etc.  And hey, Hospitals need to be built, so construction companies, steel plants, hardware suppliers.  Screw it, regulate everything.  When you are born your careeer and standard of living are decided.  Congratulations, your daughter is a doctor.  Too bad she is has to live and work in Dallas.

[Bench]

Is not the difference here is that the government is providing the service should the risk occur on one of these?  Like a war, terorist act, bank default etc.  In Health Insurance the private sector provides the service as the risk occurs.  So sovernment provided insurance leads to the government regulating health care providers.  And then the suppliers to the health care providers. So now the government runs the drug companies, hospitals, doctors, nurses, janitors, etc.  Medical malpractice would need to be regulated.  where does it end?  Jobs that cause more health risks should be regulated.  Food is a major factor in health.  Regulate all food.  So the farmers, grocery stores, transportation companies, etc.  And hey, Hospitals need to be built, so construction companies, steel plants, hardware suppliers.  Screw it, regulate everything.  When you are born your careeer and standard of living are decided.  Congratulations, your daughter is a doctor.  Too bad she is has to live and work in Dallas.

Fuck it.  I'm going in a Mad Max direction instead.

[Mr. Happy]

It is dead money, but I don't have a choice. It is a tax that I have to pay unless I purchase something I don't want to pay for.

I know these numbers are wrong, but I am guestimating the best I can:

$500/month to cover the family = $6000/yr
-or-
$1000 tax
$50/mo for catastrophic = $600/year
~$2500 for doctor care without insurance (on the high side for my family, but not unreasonable)
= $4100


So, $6000 (admittedly for fairly good coverage) vs. $4100 with the risk of a major injury or illness covered

...and, maybe, my catastrophic will be enough to negate the tax.

I can take the extra money and keep it in my health care fund for next year.

I do agree, though. It seems the ACA went to far and not far enough at the same time. I/m worried that trying to balance it between free market and socialism may actually make it worse and more expensive with all the regulation and paperwork.

That, and an estimated umteen thousand new IRS agents to enforce the tax also really concerns.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Fuck it.  I'm going in a Mad Max direction instead.

[HappyStyle] + 1million [/HappyStyle]

[EasTexAstro]

That, and an estimated umteen thousand new IRS agents to enforce the tax also really concerns.

My wife is a tax accountant. This may be good news for my family.

[Ron Brand]

That, and an estimated umteen thousand new IRS agents to enforce the tax also really concerns.

So this is a jobs bill?

[Ron Brand]

I can't tee it up any higher...

[EasTexAstro]

There should be an individual mandate to hire tax accountants....

[Limey]

Is not the difference here is that the government is providing the service should the risk occur on one of these?  Like a war, terorist act, bank default etc.

Flood...Windstorm...

It's not the cause, it the broad catastrophe exposure that is beyond the ability of insurance companies to handle.

In Health Insurance the private sector provides the service as the risk occurs.  So sovernment provided insurance leads to the government regulating health care providers.  And then the suppliers to the health care providers. So now the government runs the drug companies, hospitals, doctors, nurses, janitors, etc.  Medical malpractice would need to be regulated.  where does it end?  Jobs that cause more health risks should be regulated.  Food is a major factor in health.  Regulate all food.  So the farmers, grocery stores, transportation companies, etc.  And hey, Hospitals need to be built, so construction companies, steel plants, hardware suppliers.  Screw it, regulate everything.  When you are born your careeer and standard of living are decided.  Congratulations, your daughter is a doctor.  Too bad she is has to live and work in Dallas.

It ends where the Act ends.  They have regulated healthcare insurers because those insurers are tasked with providing coverage to the whole of the citizenry, not just the lucky few who are either healthy or rich.  Any more regulation requires further legislation.  The slippery slope argument is as fallacious here as it is everywhere else when applied to legislation.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

There should be an individual mandate to hire IT Professionals....

FIFY .... traitor.

[geezerdonk]

I want to take this oppotunity to let everyone know that I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor - twice.

[EasTexAstro]

I want to take this oppotunity to let everyone know that I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor - twice.

I was voted the Greatest Dad in the World 4 times. I have the coffee mugs to prove it!

[Mr. Happy]

So this is a jobs bill?

In a matter of speaking.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Is not the difference here is that the government is providing the service should the risk occur on one of these?  Like a war, terorist act, bank default etc.  In Health Insurance the private sector provides the service as the risk occurs.  So sovernment provided insurance leads to the government regulating health care providers.  And then the suppliers to the health care providers. So now the government runs the drug companies, hospitals, doctors, nurses, janitors, etc.  Medical malpractice would need to be regulated.  where does it end?  Jobs that cause more health risks should be regulated.  Food is a major factor in health.  Regulate all food.  So the farmers, grocery stores, transportation companies, etc.  And hey, Hospitals need to be built, so construction companies, steel plants, hardware suppliers.  Screw it, regulate everything.  When you are born your careeer and standard of living are decided.  Congratulations, your daughter is a doctor.  Too bad she is has to live and work in Dallas.

And she's marrying a poodle!

[chuck]

In a matter of speaking.

For all intensive purposes.

[Mr. Happy]

For all intensive purposes.

Unless I am missing a joke here, which is entirely possible, I think that the phrase actually is "for all intents and purposes." But intensive may work here because it is a health care bill.

[Ron Brand]

For all intensive purposes.

Irregardless of this and whatnot.

[Mr. Happy]

Irregardless of this and whatnot.

Interesting choice of words. For a non-word. I love it when people who think that they are smart use the faux word "irregardless" in an attempt to employ a big word. I simply laugh to myself about how stupid they are.
 

[BizidyDizidy]

Its something of a mute point anyways

[Ron Brand]

Its something of a mute point anyways

I could care less.

[Mr. Happy]

Its something of a mute point anyways

There's a Norm Crosby joke in there somewhere.

[Ron Brand]

There's a Norm Crosby joke in there somewhere.

Ding ding ding!

[Ebby Calvin]

I could care less.

RB, you're a very unique person.

[Ron Brand]

RB, you're a very unique person.

I went to one of my favorite restaurants Friday. On my way out I noticed they had two tea urns, one marked 'sweet,' the other 'tea.' I love that place.

[Mr. Happy]

I went to one of my favorite restaurants Friday. On my way out I noticed they had two tea urns, one marked 'sweet,' the other 'tea.' I love that place.

Sounds like my kind of place, as I sit here sipping on diet sweet tea out of my "glass," which is really a small pitcher since i drink so much of it.

[Bench]

RB, you're a very unique person.

He has a very manner of fact outlook on life.

[strosrays]

There's a Norm Crosby Jack Sutherford joke in there somewhere.

Fixinged it for you

[Limey]

Irregardless of this and whatnot.

I have a colleague who says "sim-you-ler".  It makes my bones hurt every time I hear it.

[NeilT]

I have a colleague who says "sim-you-ler".  It makes my bones hurt every time I hear it.

Just wait until we inaugriate a Republican President next January.  We'll get that problem taken care of for you in do time.

[Limey]

Just wait until we inaugriate a Republican President next January.  We'll get that problem taken care of for you in do time.

He'll kick me out of the country encourage me self-deport?

[HudsonHawk]

He'll kick me out of the country encourage me self-deport?

No one English is allowed to be an American.  I'm pretty sure it's in the Constitution.

[MusicMan]

He'll kick me out of the country encourage me self-deport?

Limey's takin er jerbz!!!

[NeilT]

Limey's takin er jerbz!!!

Teabacks are a real problem, but they do the work we don't want to do:  hotel concierge in four star hotels, leading men in romantic comedies, insurance executives.

[Limey]

No one English is allowed to be an American.  I'm pretty sure it's in the Constitution.

Well, it was written by renegade Englishmen...

[Limey]

Teabacks are a real problem, but they do the work we don't want to do:  hotel concierge in four star hotels, leading men in romantic comedies, insurance executives.

Talk shows on CNN...

[MusicMan]

Talk shows on CNN...

CNN reports: Anderson Cooper is heterosexual.

[HudsonHawk]

Well, it was written by renegade Englishmen...

Ha!  Alexander Hamilton was a West Indian Scottish Huguenot.

[Bench]

CNN reports: Anderson Cooper is heterosexual.

On the heels of being the first to report the breaking news that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are renewing their vows, it's been quite a run for the network!

[Bench]

Perhaps we can talk about Troy Aikman's sexual preference instead?

Jerry Jones finally acknowledges what we've all known, vows a return to Glory-hole days!.

Pucker up, Romo.