FOOL-PROOF CLUES ON HOW TO SPOT A RIGHT WING EXTREMIST REPUBLICAN/TEA PARTY TYPE ON TV WITH YOUR EYES CLOSED.
He talks, and acts rudely, in all manner and way. Thus, he uses words that makes you suspect he wants to cause the most harm or cruelty. Therefore, he endlessly puts venom into his verbiage and learned expletives. He obviously wants to make you look small or irrelevant.
He, with finality and in superlative even apocalyptic terms, predicts what would happen to you. He predicts a future he does not know or understand, claiming as well expert knowledge even though he may be an air head. (Would you hire Sarah Palin as your expert on constitutional law?).
He is almost always angry and looking unapproachable. And when he loses or you disagree with him, his anger turns to rage and rave. He feels able to simultaneously dwell on insults while still proclaiming his Christian credentials and ideals.
He is won’t, in political disagreements, to call for the most extreme measures against his perceived “enemy.” Thus, he would glibly shout, call for or threaten treason, un-American, impeachment, contempt, secession, repeal, nullification or other destructive terms.
He interrupts others repeatedly even though no one interrupts him when he speaks.
He is very belligerent and threatening in all matters: on foreign policy and nationalism (remember the word jingoism). This makes a mockery of his avowed belief as a “Christian”—because Christ is the “Prince of Peace.”
He is almost always the aggressor. Win (think 2010) or lose (think 2008 and 2012), he wants to fight you, humiliate you, threaten you. (You can never satisfy these people). He covers up everything with shouts and claims of freedom while denying it to others.
He doesn’t think it matters to be specific and instead dwells on generalities, bite sounds and unsupported assertions. He thinks that most voters are stupid and can easily be manipulated with emotive words of hates and division. (Remember “divide and conquer”). Thus, many of the voters they manipulate end up working against their own interests—so long as they find somebody else to blame for their own failures and inadequacies.
He dearly believes in one man one dollar s the cornerstone of democracy instead of one man one vote. He sincerely believes that most voters are not fit to vote especially minorities, young people and liberals.
He is very self-righteous on religious matters, wants to impose his personal beliefs on the whole society even while decrying government “overreach” in our personal lives. And he spouts in frightening speed all kinds of conspiracy theories. (The brains are different).
He projects his myths, conjectures and conspiracy theories as “facts” and treats objective facts as irrelevant and dangerous. He treats his routine lies, prevarications and misrepresentations as a “business plan.”
He shouts honor and country and wants America to easily go to war against other nations even though he usually finds a way to avoid military service. He feels he is more “patriotic” than any one else while in fact he is a paper tiger.
He doesn’t really believe in democracy, human rights, civil rights and human dignity (except for the unborn). So you will hear him describing women’s rights, gay rights and civil rights as a threat to the economy and the nation. He, like the Taliban, wants particularly to lord it over women in any way he can, including using public policy to interfere in the bedrooms of the nation.
He doesn’t believe in helping the poor, the elderly and the weak in our society, even though Christ said doing these things gives you a right to heaven. So he is wont to accuse any one who dares as a socialist. He even denounces Canadian and European-style capitalism as “socialism.” (Do these people read and use their brain at all)?
He believes in winning by cunning, intimidation and other unfair means, even if it means disenfranchising thousands of legitimate voters. (Remember Florida 2000 and now 2012). (Their big daddies in the Supreme Political Court will surely help out as needed).
He doesn’t think that the court should be activist except for the causes they believe in or in courts they control. When they are in control, they want to take every matter of state to the court expecting for decision in their favor. Note the flood of Republican-pioneered cases to the John Robert’s Supreme Political Court. Roberts and Co. have usually obliged, seriously tarnishing the reputation of the Court. However, Roberts disappointed them in the ACA challenge. So they are threatening, huffing and puffing—as usual! Paper Tigers barking!

These "semantic gymnastics" are getting ridiculous.

The court held that the law stands if it is considered a "tax" as congress has the power to levy taxes. It does NOT stand if it is considered "interstate commerce". The logic, as I read the opinion, said it didn't pass muster under "interstate commerce" in that congress cannot "create commerce" in order to regulate it.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

Yoshi

The Republicans are wasting their breath; everyone but a teabagger knows it is both. If you can afford health insurance but don't buy any, you pay a penalty through your income taxes. Simple.

The Only Possible First Step

The recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the 2010 Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, more commonly referred to as Obamacare, has served to
further widen the ideological chasm between those concerned with government
intrusion, and those who feel a more progressive approach is the solution to the
problem of broken healthcare. Indeed, the term “socialized medicine” is still
tossed about among the vitriol, evoking a cornucopia of anti-capitalist
boogeyman imagery. The phrase was first utilized as a pejorative by a public
relations firm working for the American Medical Association in response to
president Truman's proposal for a national healthcare system, and has had
staying power for over sixty years. Many believe that the current ruling offers
a slippery slope to even further government regulation, lack of choice, and is
the precursor to economic ruin.

The most common argument until the recent ruling has been that Obamacare
is prima facie unconstitutional due to a conflict with the U.S. Commerce clause.
Roberts' ruling has actually strengthened the long-time conservative ambition
to weaken Congress' power to regulate the national economy, and arguably other
unrelated areas. In common discourse, the Commerce Clause is usually discussed
in tangent with the Necessary and Proper Clause. Congress may regulate commerce
“among the several states,” as well as laws that are “necessary and proper” for
executing its other powers. Since the 1940s, these clauses have been
interpreted broadly, extending not only to products sold across state lines, but
activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The substantive
argument has been that even in combination with the necessary and proper clause,
Congress is not permitted to regulate inactivity, or the desire to be left alone
and take no action if one chooses. Subsequently, the “being forced to buy
broccoli” controversy was introduced.

But this is a red herring. In the 1930s, the court recognized what the
Depression had driven home—that in an interdependent national economy, local
production affects interstate commerce, and there is no meaningful distinction
between “direct” and “indirect” effect. In industrialized America, the local
and national economies are inextricably linked. In support of this theory, the
Supreme Court has upheld federal laws that restrict farmers' ability to grow
wheat for their own consumption, or criminalize the growth of marijuana for
personal medical use, even though in this instance people sought to stay out of
the market (Wickard v. Filburn , 317 U.S. 111 (1942); Gonzales v. Raich , 545
U.S. 1 (2005)). It was reasoned that such personal consumption affected
interstate commerce by altering supply and demand, and leaving it unregulated
would undermine Congress' broader regulatory plan.

In addition, the federal government maintains the right to regulate the
inactivity of those who refuse to serve on a jury by conscription. The same
applies to the institution of the draft during times of war. Yet neither of
these activities are deemed unconstitutional. It would follow that if economic
inactivity is too far removed from actual commerce to regulate, then defense
inactivity, or pacifism, would be too far from defense to regulate. If the
government can forbid pacifism to raise an army, it can also forbid economic
inaction to regulate commerce.

But in truth, the decision to go uninsured is itself a form of action, in
that the uninsured are actively choosing to pay out of pocket for care, or to
let others pay for it. Considering that everyone will need health care at some
point, the decision to go uninsured is not really “inactivity,” but a decision
as to how to finance care that will inevitably be needed. Justice Ginsberg
supported this opinion, asserting that “unlike markets for most products, the
inability to pay for care does not mean that an uninsured individual will
receive no care. Those with health insurance subsidize the medical care of
those without it.” There is no guarantee within the Constitution of the right to
be a free rider and to shift the cost of one's healthcare to others, but this
assertion is rooted in the same tradition of those who invoked states rights in
order to support slavery, segregation, and deregulation of labor and consumer
laws. Unfortunately, this is now a moot point in terms of how the legislation
actually passed the court, as the initiative has been ruled a tax as opposed to
a regulation.

According to the opinion of chief Justice Roberts, the mandate may be
upheld as within Congress' power to “lay and collect taxes,” encapsulated within
the 16th amendment. The ruling is fascinating, since it seems the Obama
administration went to great pains not to represent the legislation as a tax.
However, the issue at hand is not whether Congressional tax power is
Constitutional (despite Rush Limbaugh's histrionics) but whether the plan can be
adequately funded, and whether it is a better alternative to the existing
system. As usual, much of the statistics and rhetoric in the debate are
centered on whether you support or oppose the initiative. If one is opposed to
taxation in any form like many conservatives or tea party members, then
persuasion is likely a losing battle. Conversely, it may be difficult to point
out potential flaws in the system to supporters, who have waited decades for
positive change.

Conservatives have been quick to point out that PPACA represents “the
most massive tax hike in history.” This is patently false. The Federal Joint
Committee on Taxation, which is a nonpartisan Congressional organization with a
professional staff of economists, attorneys and accountants provided a detailed
breakdown of the tax impact of the healthcare law from 2010-2019. The
committee estimates that the law will bring in more than $437 billion by 2019.
In consideration of a projected GDP of $21 trillion and other factors, the tax
increase would amount to .49 percent of total GDP for that year. This
represents about the size of the tax increases proposed and passed by President
Carter in 1980, President Bush in 1990, and President Clinton in 1993. The
proposal is substantially smaller than the two tax increases passed during WWII,
and another passed in 1961.

But also at issue: will there be enough funding to make healthcare
affordable for all concerned? According to the Congressional Budget Office, the
PPACA is fully funded, will provide coverage for more than 94% of Americans, and
will reduce the federal deficit by $130 billion over the next 10 years and $1.2
trillion over the following 10 years. By way of brief summary, the funding is
comprised of taxes and offsets, inclusive of such things as a Medicare tax on
incomes over $200,000 and $250,000 for individuals and joint filers, an annual
fee on insurance providers, and a 40% tax on “Cadillac” insurance policies. In
addition, there are taxes on pharmaceuticals, a 10% federal sales tax on indoor
tanning services, and high-cost diagnostic equipment. The plan also includes
government money, in the form of tax credits, as a subsidy for lower-income
people who can't obtain insurance through their employer.

Another measure that combats unsustainable fiscal burden includes the
formation of insurance exchanges to reduce underwriting and inefficient
marketing practices that raise costs in the small-group and individual markets.
The reduction of Medicare overpayments, including those to medicare advantage
plans, is also included. There is a mandate to move away from fee-for-volume
payments to fee-for-value payments, as well as major research investments to
support quality improvement and cost-control efforts. A task force to reduce
fraud and waste, and measures to encourage measures to reduce malpractice
burdens are also part of the proposal. PPACA recognizes that Heath Information
Technologies can markedly improve the quality and economy of medical care, and
the proposal builds on last year's stimulus bill providing substantial funds for
HIT. The proposal also includes substantial new incentives for physicians to
provide preventative and chronic care.

Many single-payer proponents make the point that the crux of the problem
is that healthcare is still in the hands of a private industry that makes its
profit by collecting premiums and denying care, and that nationally, 78 percent
of those bankrupted by illness or injury are insured at the start of their
illness, inclusive of 60 percent who had private coverage. The PPACA makes a
good start at rectifying this, making it illegal to deny coverage to children
with a pre-existing condition, and offering coverage to adults through the
Pre-existing Condition Insurance Program. Moreover, before the Affordable
Healthcare Act, insurance companies spent as much as 40 percent of premiums on
salaries, overhead, and other administrative costs, and could raise rates
without warning or explanation. The new initiative requires that companies
spend at least 80 percent of the premium on healthcare, and must justify any
rate hike of more than ten percent to the state or federal rate review program.

The argument ultimately comes down to fundamental values. For those
content to be opposed to taxation in any form, or those content with the current
status quo, any amount of logic will be futile. At this point in time in
America, a single-payer proposal still has a Hell's snowball chance of being
initiated. It seems that the PPACA or a similar initiative is the only possible
first step, and the only viable option to initiate positive change.

The Only Possible First Step

You libs are so desperate you are now grabbing for straws. The SCOTUS called it what it is " A Tax" The White House had their lawyer call it what it is in their argument before the SCOTUS on day two " A Tax". So apparently only president Obama doesn't understand that it is a tax. For a man that doesn't want to tax the middle class he is shore going to screw them big time.

You are right Larry. The chief justice did his job....Larry and all the rest of the lefties here.....HE SAID THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN IMPLEMENT THE MANDATE IS WITH A TAX....NOT A PENALTY...NOT A FINE...NOT A FEE......

A TAX!!!!! You are right Larry...he did his job.

Is does not matter what I call it, what you call it, what Obama calls it, what Romney calls it, WHAT ANYBODY CALLS IT.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE SAID IT WAS A TAX. Thats it!!!!

Obama promised to get it passed that no part of it would be a tax...especially this.

He lied. Simple as that. There is no spinning it, no use whining about it. He lied....plain and simple.

You goofy lefties on this blog can rant and rave all you want. Those are the facts in this case. Sorry about that lefty!!!!!

Mitt Romney for a real leading President of our United States of America.

I cannot believe how people on the left keep going on TV and saying it is a penalty, its a fee, its not a tax when Roberts plain and simple said it has to be a tax. The IRS will collect. It will be a percentage of your income.

How can the left be so stupid here? Larry, will you answer me that?

You wanted it so bad. There it is, but if it stays past Jan of 2013, it will be a tax. Why are you guys running away from that?

Oh yea, I forgot...Obama made big promises that would never happen.

Ooooops!!!! HE LIED!...............................AGAIN.

I don't Care what it is, FEE, a Tax or a Penalty, Who Care's It is a step forward, to hear Robme speak out on this is just NUT'S, YOUR plan, What is it?? Then to hear Gov. Scott, Fla, and My favorite in my State, WALKER, We are not going to do anything until after the Election... My Party say's this, I jump. Those statement's speak volume's, So let me get this straight, If a young family that has a sick Child with pre ex cond, TOO BAD???? Your an Eagle Scout Mr. Walker........

Romney is a penalty. And he's very taxing.

So the rudderless republicants are whining about the tax for healthcare, what else is new?

Near the early 1900s, a veteran of the US Civil War later became a jurist on the high court and opined that "taxes are what people pay to live in a civilized society". I guess a capricious capitalist is not civilized and is better represented by the likes of the Morlocks instead of Scrooges.

But, its apparent there is no redeeming value in Romney or his party's campaign against other people who are unwelcomed in their society.