US Politics -- Tomorrow (Thurs., 6/28) is going to be interesting!

Miniature Horse Talk Forums

Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I had my fun with this thread yesterday, and now like ML, I'm done, think I'll take someones elses advice and go sit in the chicken coop and let them peck at my toes, NOT, thats a joke, but I do raise chickens! It's too hot outside, I'm staying in the air conditioning and I'll find some other way to get into trouble or make a fool out of myself in front of my friends. I love all of you! If nothing else these threads are entertaining on a hot summer day!
 
I am not about to enter a comment, but I did read this whole thread and actually learned some things!

As for the chickens? I'd rather raise quail; I grew up on a state game bird farm and I LOVE game birds, esp. quailies! There are some 'scalie's(blue or scaled quail)around here, and I love, love, LOVE hearing their calls; beats the HECK out of the sound of loud motorcycles/ATVs/dirt bikes/muffler-less autos/small planes w/ loud engines that love to fly in circles overhead, etc., that are nowadays a near-constant intrusion into our former rural peace and quiet.)

(FWIW-Poll on my msn home page has 60% of respondents saying the Supreme Court did NOT make 'the right decision', compared to 32% who think it did.)Make of that what you will.

Margo
 
Chickens... I've wanted some of those "furry chickens" (silky hens) for awhile but have not ever pursued it. I think they look so neat!

Concerning the main topic, It might surprise people, but after the initial shock of the ruling, hearing the statements from the court read -- I actually think the right ddecisionwas made and that the court did what the court is supposed to do. That's not the same as saying I like Obamacare or want Uncle Sam to control our hhealth care but it sounds to me as if the proper, legal action was accomplished and as was indicated -- the ball is now in the court of We The People. The courts don't rewrite, but rule on what has been presented to them. I don't think that many people on the LEFT or the RIGHT expected the outcome (for it to boil down to a tax), but there we go. While the government cannot compel us to purchase a product, they actually do have the right to levy taxes. It's a weird combination of feeling the right thing "by the letter" was decided, but not liking that the result is Obamacare has survived this round and -- just when I thought I couldn't like it less -- it turned into a whopper of a tax bill. $1.7 Trillion Dollars...

But just to be clear, I don't "like" what was decided yesterday but I think it was the CORRECT outcome based on how the legistlation was written. We don't want a Supreme Court to act on what they do and do not LIKE or what they think is or is not best for us. We want them to apply the letter of the law.

It was a roller coaster yesterday morning. I kept re-loading the Drudge Report and, you know me, I had FOX News on as well. Both Fox and Drudge initially got it "wrong" because the earlier part of the court's decision not uphold the individual mandate in the form it was assumed to take -- only to later in the document hold it up as the tax it has now become. Apparently, CNN got it wrong at first too but watching the reporters reading and trying to report at the same time, it's so easy to see how it happened. Still, it made it more emotional than I would have figured.

"We the People" get a chance to influence the ultimate fate of Obamacare this November. Really, that's how it should be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They probably do taste better than horses
default_sad.png
 
Phew!!!
default_biggrin.png


... I'm probably just over anticipating the turkey burgers we're having for dinner tonight
default_eat.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just sent this report to some of my clients and radio show listeners, and since it ties into the discussion here, I thought why not share it with you folks, too.

--------------

THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT





A look at the ripples from the Supreme Court decision.





President Obama’s health care law has held up in the Supreme Court. So what impact might this have on the stock market, businesses, and investors in the coming months?

How will Wall Street take this? After the June 28 ruling, stocks of key managed care companies fell while hospital stocks and Medicaid-related stocks rallied. Was this a reaction confined to a market day, or an indicator? Opinions differ.

In the view of Leerink Swann health care analyst Jason Gurda, the high court ruling was “largely a neutral” financially and “what the market has mostly expected for the last two years.” Barry Knapp, head of equity strategy at Barclays Capital, called the Supreme Court’s decision “a pretty clear negative” that would weigh on business confidence and therefore the markets. Charles Boorady, a top health-care analyst for Credit Suisse, saw an upside: “As a country, we’re going to spend about $2 trillion more on health care with this law and that’s all money coming into [that sector], which will ultimately be good for the managed health care stocks.”1,2

Right now, the market has plenty of things on its mind (European debt issues, job creation, China’s economic health, and our November elections) and the impact of this ruling might fall far down the list.

How much more tax will we pay? In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. portrayed the Affordable Care Act’s individual insurance mandate as a tax. This was a key argument for the constitutionality of the reforms.3

The greatest financial impact from the Affordable Care Act may be felt in tax terms. Here are some related taxes/penalties poised to arrive in 2013, 2014 and beyond that could affect solopreneurs, businesses and the wealthy.

*Medicare surtaxes in 2013. There are actually two such taxes. Individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and married couples earning more than $250,000 would pay a 3.8% “Medicare contribution tax” on all or part of their net investment income. Medicare taxes on salary and self-employment would rise 0.9% for such taxpayers.4

*Penalties for individual non-compliance. The typical American who goes without health insurance coverage in 2014 will have to pay a penalty - $95 or 1% of annual income, whichever is greater. In 2015, the penalty will be $325 or 2% of annual income. The dollar amounts of these penalties are tripled for uninsured families.3

*Penalties for business non-compliance. In 2014, a business with 50 or more FTEs must start providing health coverage or face fines once an employee turns to the government for a health care tax credit or a subsidy on the exchanges. The minimum fine will be $40,000. All this may drive larger companies to shop for cheaper health coverage on the state exchanges. Yet some firms may run the numbers, consider the penalties and find it more cost-effective to drop their health plans and direct employees (and early retirees) to buy insurance individually.5

*A major excise tax looms for “Cadillac” plans. In 2018, active health plans of large employers (self-insured or not) will face a 40% excise tax if plan costs exceed $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage.6

How surprised are business owners? Some quarters of the small business community were shocked by the Supreme Court’s decision. The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), which lobbied against the reforms for two years, will now seek to mount legal challenges to the ACA.7

As Shawn Cochran of website marketing firm Branches PSP told Fox Business, the rule that requires companies with more than 50 FTEs to provide health insurance “will be a huge factor in who and how we hire – whether we bring on full-time employees or individual contractors. This directly affects the business decisions we make and the way companies will move forward.” Jim Amos, CEO of frozen yogurt chain Tasti D-Lite, thinks the ACA will slow franchise growth. “It’s going to force franchisees to shift workers to part-time to avoid the 50-employee threshold,” he told CNBC. “It will keep new owners and new openings on the sideline.” John Arensmeyer, CEO of the Small Business Majority, saw a win all around: “The law will significantly rein in costs while providing more health coverage options for entrepreneurs.”7,8

While the financial impact of the ACA may be subtler than that of the EU debt crisis or the potential end of the Bush-era tax cuts, it could prove considerable indeed.

Citations:

1 – www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/business/insurance-stocks-flag-hospital-shares-gain.html [6/28/12]

2 – www.cnbc.com/id/47994090 [6/28/12]

3 - money.cnn.com/2012/06/28/pf/taxes/health_reform_new_taxes/index.htm [6/28/12]

4 - www.smartmoney.com/taxes/income/what-obamacare-may-mean-for-taxes-1335896160486/ [6/28/12]

5 – money.cnn.com/2012/06/28/smallbusiness/supreme-court-health-reform/index.htm [6/28/12]

6 - www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/06/28/health-reform-is-constitutional-here-are-tax-implications/ [6/28/12]

7 - smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/legal-hr/2012/06/28/obamacare-upheld-small-business-community-divided/ [6/28/12]

8 - www.cnbc.com/id/48000806 [6/28/12]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tag I live in the boonies and only have dial up! Sorry I couldn't watch your videos, bummer for me!
They were not videos - just screen captures of the bungles made by Fox News and CNN...
default_yes.gif


I did enjoy Romney's rebuttal speech in which he outlined aspects of healthcare overhaul that he would put into effect - that were already covered under Obamacare. Doesn't anyone do their homework anymore? It was very ...odd - and basically he wound up saying he would do a lot of the same things. Go figure. Romneycare is not going to be much different.

Of course, the market had one of its best days in a long time today - so I guess that Obamacare scare had no lasting effects... same as every other "scare" the market goes through.
default_yes.gif
 
According to that calculator, if I have to purchase Obamacare, it will cost me 10,000/yr in premiums for myself and my husband and over $12,000 a year out of pocket (that does not include premium). I am not rich by any means either, our combined income is considered slightly above middle class. So those of you who are in the middle class and think this is going to help you, think again. Not to mention those who do get insurance through your employer (and your employer pays all or even part of the premium) don't be surprised if that option will no longer be available....the penalty for not providing you insurance is going to be cheaper than them providing it!
 
Spent some time in Track Town USA at the Olympic Trials...WOW, what a street party that is. They have all the roads closed off around Hayward Field at the University of Oregon and it's all one big celebration. Lot of fun. Right opposite Hayward Field is the Knight Law School...OMG...that school is SO lucky to have "Uncle Phil" and his mega $$$$$ donations.

Talking Obamacare I'm saving $600 a month and have been for the past few months. I have a 22 year old. The day he turned 21 we bought him his own healthcare policy. Cost us almost $600 a month. Now Obamacare covers family members up to the age of 26 so he's back on our family plan. That's around $30,000 I'm going to save over the next few years. I told him I'd take that $600 and purchase him a 5 acre lot that's for sale close by - the owner will carry and after the 5 years he'll have something to show for the $'s that he'll have as an investment forever. I think that's putting money back into the economy. I'm not sure my neighbor down the street is too happy though. She doesn't have healthcare because she claims poverty...of course with 4 full size horses to feed and a brand new pickup to pull her 5 horse trailer - she maybe is poor. Fancy her having to fork our her share - oh the horror of it!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
More sad to me than people actually thinking it is funny that the news media at first announced the decision as struck down is that likely if a poll were taken across the U.S. today and the question was:

"Which of the announcements that came this week is more newsworthy to you?"

1. Supreme Court rules on Obamacare (regardless of the outcome)

2. Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes split up.

Wonder how close the vote would be? Just saying......
 
More sad to me than people actually thinking it is funny that the news media at first announced the decision as struck down is that likely if a poll were taken across the U.S. today and the question was:

"Which of the announcements that came this week is more newsworthy to you?"

1. Supreme Court rules on Obamacare (regardless of the outcome)

2. Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes split up.

Wonder how close the vote would be? Just saying......
Sad because I think we all know the answer Vickie
default_sad.png
(Good point)
 
Sonya and Vickie, unfortunately, I think you're both right on. A huge number of people pay no attention to news and politics but know the score on pop culture events. If Obamacare stands, those folks will be shocked when the consequences negatively impact them in a way American Idol never could
default_sad.png
 
I'm NOT going to panic over how we are going to come up with an extra $12,000 a year until the November elections are done. And a lot can happen between now and when all this is supposed to take affect.
 
Great article from the Wall Street Journal! Lots of very good points are made, and predictions that make a lot of sense to me.

Jenkins: ObamaCare—Upheld and Doomed
Regardless of the Supreme Court, fiscal reality will prevail.
Fans of ObamaCare must be busting a gut three times over. The mandate that conservatives now hate was originally a conservative proposal. In upholding it, Chief Justice John Roberts followed President Obama's Rose Garden instructions to the letter: The Court must find an act constitutional if it happens to be the signature act of a president running for re-election.
 
Worse, in doing so, he may have read any constitutional limit on Congress out of the Constitution while pretending to do the opposite. Congress cannot compel you to do anything Congress wishes, but it can impose taxes on you until you finally have no rational alternative but to do whatever Congress wishes.
History will judge whether Mr. Roberts saved the reputation of the court or lost his nerve. Many conservatives obviously suspect the latter. Resolved: The government cannot make you eat broccoli, though it may levy a non-broccoli-eating tax on any who refuse.
Yet he may also think—and would not be wrong to think—that ObamaCare is doomed in any case. His opinion makes clearer than ever that ObamaCare is a tax program—throwing more tax dollars at an unreformed health-care system. ObamaCare is a huge new entitlement in a nation laboring under commitments it already can't afford. Those who gripe that he just authorized a vast expansion of the welfare state haven't reckoned with this fiscal reality principle.
What's more—and save us your constitutional brickbats—the mandate's survival could actually be a convenience to those who remain seriously interested in fixing health care.
 
GOPers, including Mitt Romney, immediately adopted "repeal" as their mantra. But repealing ObamaCare would just leave us with the health-care system we have, which is already ObamaCare in many respects—an unsustainable set of subsidies bankrupting the nation.
The solution is a tweak. Republicans already are lip-committed to a national health-insurance charter that allows insurers to design their own policies and market them across state lines. Republicans are also lip-committed to a tax reform to equalize the tax treatment of health care whether purchased by individuals or by employers on behalf of individuals.
Now just modify the Affordable Care Act so buying any health policy authorized by the new charter, no matter how minimalist, satisfies the employer and individual mandate
What would follow is a boom in low-cost, high-deductible plans that leave individuals in charge of managing most of their ordinary health-care costs out of pocket. Because it would be cheap, millions who would opt not to buy coverage will buy coverage. Because it will be cheap, companies will direct their low-wage and entry-level employees to this coverage.
 
Now these workers will be covered for serious illness or injury, getting the rest of us off the hook. As they grow older, wealthier and start families, they will choose more extensive but still rationally limited coverage. Meanwhile, the giant subsidies ObamaCare would dish out to help the middle class afford ObamaCare's gold-plated mandatory coverage would be unneeded.
With consumers shouldering a bigger share of health expenses directly, hospital and doctors would discover the advantages of competing on price and quality. This way lies salvation. In the long run, whatever share of GDP society decides to allocate to health care, it will get its money's worth—the fundamental problem today.
Perhaps a not-discreditable sense of the political moment lies behind the chief justice's opinion after all. The court's job, he wrote, is not to "protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
He may have meant: The chief justice's job is to get the court out of the way while the body politic still remains suspended between recognizing the unsustainabilty of the current welfare model and deciding what to do about it.
 
This was always the fatal problem of ObamaCare. Reality could not have instructed President Obama more plainly: The last thing we needed, in a country staggering under deficits and debt, a sluggish economy and an unaffordable entitlement structure, was a new Rube Goldberg entitlement. The last thing we needed was ObamaCare. The nation and the times were asking Mr. Obama to reform health care, not to double-down on everything wrong with the current system.
Even with this week's Court success, he failed—and it's not as if there wasn't a deep well of policy understanding in Washington that he could have drawn on to take the country in a better direction. Regardless of any Supreme Court ruling, reality will pass its own judgment on the Affordable Care Act and it won't be favorable.
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303649504577496850233678284.html

http://online.wsj.co...0233678284.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303649504577496850233678284.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just because I'm betting many of you will not hear this on your nightly news, here's a neat little list... from some of our friends at Canada Free Press!

Here is an abbreviated list of taxes on families and businesses introduced by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), known as Obamacare, totalling more than $500 billion over the next ten years as prepared by the Americans for Tax Reform:

  • Excise taxes on charitable hospitals ($50,000 per hospital if they do not meet HHS criteria of “community health assessment needs,” billing and collection,” and “financial assistance” (PPACA, 2010, pp. 1,961-1,971)
  • Codify “economic substance doctrine” (IRS will not allow any legal deductions or tax-minimizing plans because it lacks “substance” and is intended to reduce taxes owed); this is a tax increase of $4.5 billion (Bill Reconciliation Act, 2010, pp. 108-113)
  • “Black liquor” tax on a special bio-fuel (Bill Reconciliation Act, 2010, p. 105)
  • Tax on innovating drug companies (PPACA, 2010, p. 1,971-1,980)
  • Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Increase (PPACA, 2010, p. 2,004)
  • Ten percent tax on indoor tanning (PPACA, 2010, pp. 2,397-2,399)
  • Medicine cabinet tax disallows Americans to use health savings accounts, flexible spending accounts, or health reimbursement pre-tax money to buy over the counter medicines except insulin (PPACA, 2011, pp. 1,957-1,959
  • HSA Withdrawal tax hike from 10 to 20 percent (PPACA, 2011, p. 1,959
  • Employer reporting of insurance on W-2 forms, taxing health benefits on individual tax returns (PPACA, 2012, p. 1,957)
  • Surtax on investment income for families that make at least $250,000 or $200,00 single (Bill Reconciliation Act, 2013, pp. 87-93)
  • Medicare payroll tax increase (PPACA, Reconciliation Act, 2013, pp. 2,000-2,003, pp. 87-93)
  • A 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers (PPACA, 2013, pp. 1,980-1,986)
  • Medical expenses can be itemized if they exceed 10 percent, no longer the previous 7.5 percent, resulting in fewer people being able to itemize (PPACA, 2013, pp. 1,994-1,995
  • Flexible spending account cap of $2,500 which is now unlimited (PPACA, 2013, pp. 2,388-2,389)
  • Eliminate tax deductions for employer-provided retirement prescription drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (PPACA, 2013, p. 1,994)
  • Limit of $500,000 annual executive compensation for health insurance executives (PPACA, 2013, pp. 1,995-2,000)
  • Individual mandate excise tax starting in 2014 if a person does not buy a “qualifying” health insurance, 1 percent in 2014, 2 percent in 2015, 2.5 percent in 2016; exempted are hardship cases as determined by HHS, religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes (PPACA, 2014, pp. 317-337)
  • Employer mandated tax, non-deductible of $2,000 per employee if the employer does not offer health coverage and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit; if an employee receives coverage through the government exchange, the employer penalty for that employee increases to $3,000 (PPACA, 2014, pp. 345-346)
  • Tax on health insurers based on premiums collected per year (PPACA, 2014, pp. 1,986-1,993 (this all but forces employers to stop offering insurance, forcing their employees onto the government exchanges)
  • 40 percent excise tax on comprehensive health insurance plans or “Cadillac plans” (PPACA, 2018, pp. 1,941-1,956)

Source: http://www.canadafre...y6n7WM.facebook

I think that the tax on innovating drug companies, medicine cabinet tax, surtax on investment income, medicare payroll tax increase, excise tax on medical device manufacturers, and the increased threshold to itemize medical expenses for tax return deductions are extra "nice" and should to something to the economy and the prospects for medical innovation... But hey, most people aren't paying attention to what's going on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Canada Free Press. I have often looked askance at that website when I stumble across a link. CFP is a very conservative website full of opinion pieces - and not actual press in Canada. Their "columnists" tend to post along these lines...

We think that most of America and a vast majority of the rest of the world have by now discovered the real Barack Hussein Obama; usurper, charlatan, actor, pretender, alibier, as well as democracy detester, country destroyer, and prevaricator extreme.
Or in a "column" about the bus lady... this pops up...

Like Islamic Sharia law and democracy, good and evil will never be able to co-exist. America cannot exist if no one stands up against those adherents and purveyors pushing evil under the color of diversity and tolerance. Under the false meme of diversity, Americans have been brainwashed by Progressives, Communists, liberals and Ivy League twits attempting to balkanize America and forever pervert the moral fabric that made this country exceptional. Instead of standing up for all that is good and kicking out what is bad, we have been conditioned to accept victimhood status individually and collectively.
Their agenda is very clear. You get hit over the head with it time and time again at that website to the point that it gets a bit comical - all while they assure you how "free" thinking they are...

However, agendas should be put aside. Figures should always be checked and it should be clarified that things are not reported out of context when it comes to such issues. Cherry-picked facts that are presented often deliberately omit other facts or figures that may not favour specific agendas.

There are many things in that long Obamacare treatise that are not going to be "perfect", are going to be tweaked, and may never even come to be.

Strangely enough, a lot of what Romney said he would "fix" about healthcare is already part of Obamacare - but hey, most people aren't paying attention to what is going on...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

Back
Top