Reply With Quote
paying for an abortion (backstreet abortions can be pretty cheap) is a lot cheaper than raising a baby, which of course Texas is also cutting aid to poor children (they only care about the kid until its born).
They're gonna pay for an abortion after the free clinics didn't give them free condoms and free pills. Ok.
paying for an abortion (backstreet abortions can be pretty cheap) is a lot cheaper than raising a baby, which of course Texas is also cutting aid to poor children (they only care about the kid until its born).
You're going to have a difficult time quantifying that abortion count, if you even care.
And your "study" you posted absolutely negates the second half of your post.
The Conservative Misinformation Campaign About Obamacare Has Worked Really, Really Well
Andrew Sprung draws my attention to a Kaiser quiz about Obamacare from a few months ago, and you'll be unsurprised to learn that most Americans don't know much about it. I put the responses into graphical form, and what's most interesting, I think, is to look at the right side of the chart: the questions that were most frequently gotten wrong.
All of them are tied together by a single thread: the conservative misinformation campaign against the Affordable Care Act. The tea party folks have never spent much time talking about low-income subsidies or tax credits or Medicaid expansion or pre-existing conditions. And guess what? Most people know how the law works in those areas.1
But conservatives do spend a lot of time rabble-rousing about death panels and illegal immigrants and Medicare cuts. And they also spend a lot of time bewailing the "government takeover" of healthcare, which includes things like the public option ("a new government run insurance plan") and a supposed mandate that small businesses will all be required to offer health insurance for their employees. Sure enough, those are the areas where misunderstanding is highest.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...ce=twitterfeed
Repugs have NO HEALTH POLICY of their own (they want to REPEAL ACA, but have no REPLACEMENT defined), while spewing lies about ACA, which is the Repug/Gecko strategy on everything.
Romney’s Provable Lie About the Mandate
Mitt Romney, though, seems to engage in telling immediate provable lies. The type of lies that can quickly and clearly be labeled a lie – with solid evidence. The most recent example: in an interview with Jan Crawford Mitt Romney said the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act was a tax, but the nearly identical mandate he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts is not a tax. Romney, “They don’t need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be cons utional. And — and as a result, Massachusetts’ mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the legislature and by me. And so it stays as it was.”
The thing is that Romney acknowledged on the record that his mandate is a tax penalty or results in those without insurance “finding their taxes are higher.” In a 2009 op-ed he specifically described his mandate as a “tax penalty.” If not calling making you pay the government money as part of your tax returns a ‘tax’ is all it takes to make something ‘not a tax,’ than the ACA mandate would seem to be even less a tax than Romney’s mandate.
Romney may have been lying when he once called his mandate a tax penalty or he is lying now when he says his mandate is not a tax, but both can’t be true. Either way he lied at some point.
http://elections.firedoglake.com/201...t-the-mandate/
BFDRomney’s Provable Lie About the Mandate
Mitt Romney, though, seems to engage in telling immediate provable lies. The type of lies that can quickly and clearly be labeled a lie – with solid evidence. The most recent example: in an interview with Jan Crawford Mitt Romney said the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act was a tax, but the nearly identical mandate he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts is not a tax. Romney, “They don’t need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be cons utional. And — and as a result, Massachusetts’ mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the legislature and by me. And so it stays as it was.”
The thing is that Romney acknowledged on the record that his mandate is a tax penalty or results in those without insurance “finding their taxes are higher.” In a 2009 op-ed he specifically described his mandate as a “tax penalty.” If not calling making you pay the government money as part of your tax returns a ‘tax’ is all it takes to make something ‘not a tax,’ than the ACA mandate would seem to be even less a tax than Romney’s mandate.
Romney may have been lying when he once called his mandate a tax penalty or he is lying now when he says his mandate is not a tax, but both can’t be true. Either way he lied at some point.
http://elections.firedoglake.com/201...t-the-mandate/
What you clearly missed was that Massachusetts was writing their health care law under the Massachusetts cons ution and laws.
The ACA was written under the Federal Cons ution and laws. The supreme court ruled. It's a tax.
lol motherjones.
It can be considered a tax when reviewing cons utionality but it is a penalty from the vein of looking at laws. The court made that distinction clear.
Its a basic principle of review. When looking at government action in regards to the cons ution or in the actions of people in regards to the law they do not have to look at labels. The reason should be obvious. If not for this then they could write laws change the words to appear to not be uncons utional and get away with it.
People could write contracts using wording to try and cir vent the law in much the same way. The NFL tries to do it all the time by calling their restrictions of trade 'compe ive balance' and for 60 years the court has been telling them they cannot just label things and have them ignore what their agreements do.
OTOH, as it pertains to legislatures writing laws and how they relate to other laws then the labels can be used. The laws are all their own creations so they can do with them as they please. The same holds true with any contracts that we may write.
The bottomline in this is that if you pe ion the court to review it in respect to the cons ution then it can be viewed as a tax. You file the ing 'penalty' with your tax return after all. But if you want to review it in respect to the law say the tax code then it's a penalty still.
So it is both a tax and a penalty at the same time.
10 Things You Get Now That Obamacare Survived
1) Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime coverage limits on your insurance. Never again will you face the risk of getting really sick and then, a few months in, having your insurer tell you, "Sorry, you've 'run out' of coverage." Almost everyone I've met knows someone who had insurance but got really, really sick (or had a kid get really sick) and ran into a lifetime cap.
2) If you don't know someone who has run into a lifetime cap, you probably know someone who has run into an annual cap. The use of these will be sharply limited. (They'll be eliminated entirely in 2014.)
3) Insurers can no longer tell kids with preexisting conditions that they'll insure them "except for" the preexisting condition. That's called preexisting condition exclusion, and it's out the window.
4) A special, temporary program will help adults with preexisting conditions get coverage. It expires in 2014, when the health insurance exchanges—basically big "pools" of businesses and individuals—come on-line. That's when all insurers will have to cover everyone, preexisting condition or not.
5) Insurance companies can't drop you when you get sick, either—this plan means the end of "rescissions."
6) You can stay on your parents' insurance until you're 26.
7) Seniors get $250 towards closing the "doughnut hole" in their prescription drug coverage. Currently, prescription drug coverage ends once you've spent $2,700 on drugs and it doesn't kick in again until you've spent nearly $6,200. James Ridgeway wrote about the problems [12] with the doughnut hole for Mother Jones in the September/October 2008 issue. Eventually, the health care reform bill will close the donut hole entirely. The AARP has more on immediate health care benefits [13] for seniors. Next year (i.e., in nine months), 50 percent of the doughnut hole will be covered.
8) Medicare's preventive benefits now come with a free visit with your primary care doctor every year to plan out your prevention services. And there are no more co-pays for preventative services in Medicare.
9) This is a big one: Small businesses get big tax credits—up to 50 percent of premium costs—for offering health insurance to their workers.
10) Insurers with unusually high administrative costs have to offer rebates to their customers, and every insurance company has to reveal how much it spends on overhead.
UPDATE: Here's one more big benefit we've found out about since the ACA passed:
11) Free birth control [14] and other preventative services for women, unless you work for a faith-based organization that opposes birth control [15].
http://www.motherjones.com/print/183141
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
