Pueple
Judicial Review: Conservative vs Liberal

I suspect many Americans both Republican and Democrat; Liberal and Conservative need to retake American Government. The United States Supreme Court was not created to judge right or wrong or base judicial review strictly on political affiliation but rather on the constitution. 

LOOK UP WHAT JUDICIAL REVIEW MEANS!

The Supreme Court ONLY holds jurisdiction over constitutionality. So the chief justice is a political conservative. Get over it! IT DOES NOT MATTER. The question was “Is ObamaCare constitutional?” 

THE VERDICT: YES IT IS!

liberalsarecool:

Mitt: the ‘outsourcing pioneer’ with the Cayman and Swiss bank accounts.

liberalsarecool:

Mitt: the ‘outsourcing pioneer’ with the Cayman and Swiss bank accounts.

abaldwin360:

big thanks to reddit user CaspianX2 for typing all this out!

What people call “Obamacare” is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it “Obamacare” before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It’s a term mostly used by people who don’t like the PPaACA, and it’s become popularized in part because PPaACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.

Anyway, the PPaACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPaACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn’t have to.

So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):

Already in effect:

  • It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)

  • It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)

  • It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn’t directly control, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money.

  • It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy.

  • It makes a “high-risk pool” for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of “pre-existing conditions” altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered “pre-existing conditions” can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.

  • It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.

  • It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths.

  • It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won’t get any more coverage because they have hit a “lifetime limit”. Basically, if someone has paid for life insurance, that company can’t tell that person that he’s used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won’t cover him any more. They can’t do this for lifetime spending, and they’re limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending.

  • Kids can continue to be covered by their parents’ health insurance until they’re 26.

  • No more “pre-existing conditions” for kids under the age of 19.

  • Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.

  • People in a “Medicare Gap” get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.

  • Insurers can’t just drop customers once they get sick.

  • Insurers have to tell customers what they’re spending money on. (Instead of just “administrative fee”, they have to be more specific).

  • Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they’re turned down.

  • New ways to stop fraud are created.

  • Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.

  • Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.

  • Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.

  • A new website is made to give people insurance and health information.

  • A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.

  • A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they’re not price-gouging customers.

  • A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn’t paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.

  • Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.

8/1/2012

  • Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.

1/1/2013

  • If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%)

1/1/2014

This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.

  • No more “pre-existing conditions”. At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.

  • If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the “mandate” that people are talking about. Basically, it’s a trade-off for the “pre-existing conditions” bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can’t just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you’ll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you’re not buying insurance because you just can’t afford it.

  • Insurer’s now can’t do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need.

  • Make it so more poor people can get Medicare by making the low-income cut-off higher.

  • Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.

  • Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.

  • Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.

  • Cut some Medicare spending

  • Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.

  • Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower-class, basically making it so poor people can get some medical coverage.

  • Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won’t be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.

  • A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.

  • A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.

  • A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they’ll get taxed.

  • The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.

1/1/2015

  • Doctors’ pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat.

1/1/2017

  • If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPaACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPaACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).

2018

  • All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).

  • A new tax on “Cadillac” health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).

2020

  • The elimination of the “Medicare gap”

.

Aaaaand that’s it right there.

The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something in unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it’s not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.

Plus, as previously mentioned, it’s necessary if you’re doing away with “pre-existing conditions” because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.

liberalsarecool:

We are a vindictive country.

liberalsarecool:

We are a vindictive country.

discoverynews:

theanimalblog:

Taken in the Magdalena River Valley, the surprising picture is among the first photographic evidence that the big cats will venture onto oil palm farms, a growing type of agriculture in South America and Asia.

We have more on this here

eclipse shadows in california
quickhits:

A GOP Economic Myth Bites the Dust It’s one of the most enduring myths in American politics; that if you increase taxes for the wealthy (or, in the right’s favorite BS term, “job creators”), the rate of employment will take a nosedive. Nothing about this makes any sense at all, but with a media environment that values a false “balance” above truthtelling, it’s much easier to gloss over that fact. What the right is saying when they make this argument is that it would be too expensive to make profit — a ridiculous claim that ignores simple math, not to mention logic. So, in our current political and media environment, even obviously bogus claims need to be debunked. And two top economists — Nobel Prize winner Peter Diamond and John Bates Clark award winner Emmanuel Saez — probably felt more than up to the task when they took it upon themselves to bust this rightwing myth. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Diamond and Saez set the record straight.
The share of pre-tax income accruing to the top 1% of earners in the U.S. has more than doubled to about 20% in 2010 from less than 10% in the 1970s. At the same time, the average federal income tax rate on top earners has declined significantly. Given the large current and projected deficits, should the top 1% be taxed more? Because U.S. income concentration is now so high, the potential tax revenue at stake is large. […] According to our analysis of current tax rates and their elasticity, the revenue-maximizing top federal marginal income tax rate would be in or near the range of 50%-70% (taking into account that individuals face additional taxes from Medicare and state and local taxes). Thus we conclude that raising the top tax rate is very likely to result in revenue increases at least until we reach the 50% rate that held during the first Reagan administration, and possibly until the 70% rate of the 1970s. To reduce tax avoidance opportunities, tax rates on capital gains and dividends should increase along with the basic rate. Closing loopholes and stepping up enforcement would further limit tax avoidance and evasion. But will raising top tax rates significantly lower economic growth? But will raising top tax rates significantly lower economic growth? In the postwar U.S., higher top tax rates tend to go with higher economic growth—not lower. Indeed, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP annual growth per capita (to adjust for population growth) averaged 1.68% between 1980 and 2010 when top tax rates were relatively low, while growth averaged 2.23% between 1950 and 1980 when top tax rates were at or above 70%.
 So no, raising taxes on the wealthy won’t harm job creation — mostly because the “job creators” aren’t the wealthy, they’re consumers as a whole. “With the ‘taxes harm growth’ and Laffer curve arguments undercut by research such as this, Republicans have fallen back on the argument that it’s unfair to take income away from those who earn it,” comments economist Mark Thoma (link mine). “But that presumes that the system allocates income fairly, a claim that is hard to swallow given how much financial executives are paid relative to their contribution to the productive process (to name just one example). There’s nothing unfair about using taxes to ‘clawback’ misdirected income, and it won’t harm growth to send income where it should have gone in the first place.” In other words, the dreaded “redistribution of wealth” — although it would be more accurately described as the “re-redistribution of wealth.” Insanely low tax rates and a corporate culture that rewards even failure with tremendous bonuses represent “Robin Hood in reverse” economics, where those least able to afford it take the hit, in order to take the burden off the wealthy. Does this create jobs? We’ve already established that the answer is no. And the reason is simple — producers will only offer the goods and service that people will pay for. The less money consumers have to spend, the fewer employees will be needed at any given workplace. By taking money from consumers to cover tax breaks for the wealthy, you do the opposite of creating jobs. Take a look at that chart at the top of the page — tax rates for the top earners are the lowest since 1950 and jobs follow that downward arc. Money in the hands of consumers, not employers, creates jobs. This is not a hypothesis, this is as solid a fact as gravity. It’s really very easy to explain all of this: employers don’t hire people any time they can afford to — they only hire people when they can’t afford not to. Anyone who argues otherwise is either a liar or someone who doesn’t understand economics, business, or math at all. -Wisco

quickhits:

A GOP Economic Myth Bites the Dust

It’s one of the most enduring myths in American politics; that if you increase taxes for the wealthy (or, in the right’s favorite BS term, “job creators”), the rate of employment will take a nosedive. Nothing about this makes any sense at all, but with a media environment that values a false “balance” above truthtelling, it’s much easier to gloss over that fact. What the right is saying when they make this argument is that it would be too expensive to make profit — a ridiculous claim that ignores simple math, not to mention logic.

So, in our current political and media environment, even obviously bogus claims need to be debunked. And two top economists — Nobel Prize winner Peter Diamond and John Bates Clark award winner Emmanuel Saez — probably felt more than up to the task when they took it upon themselves to bust this rightwing myth. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Diamond and Saez set the record straight.

The share of pre-tax income accruing to the top 1% of earners in the U.S. has more than doubled to about 20% in 2010 from less than 10% in the 1970s. At the same time, the average federal income tax rate on top earners has declined significantly. Given the large current and projected deficits, should the top 1% be taxed more? Because U.S. income concentration is now so high, the potential tax revenue at stake is large.

[…]

According to our analysis of current tax rates and their elasticity, the revenue-maximizing top federal marginal income tax rate would be in or near the range of 50%-70% (taking into account that individuals face additional taxes from Medicare and state and local taxes). Thus we conclude that raising the top tax rate is very likely to result in revenue increases at least until we reach the 50% rate that held during the first Reagan administration, and possibly until the 70% rate of the 1970s. To reduce tax avoidance opportunities, tax rates on capital gains and dividends should increase along with the basic rate. Closing loopholes and stepping up enforcement would further limit tax avoidance and evasion.

But will raising top tax rates significantly lower economic growth? But will raising top tax rates significantly lower economic growth? In the postwar U.S., higher top tax rates tend to go with higher economic growth—not lower. Indeed, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP annual growth per capita (to adjust for population growth) averaged 1.68% between 1980 and 2010 when top tax rates were relatively low, while growth averaged 2.23% between 1950 and 1980 when top tax rates were at or above 70%.


So no, raising taxes on the wealthy won’t harm job creation — mostly because the “job creators” aren’t the wealthy, they’re consumers as a whole.

“With the ‘taxes harm growth’ and Laffer curve arguments undercut by research such as this, Republicans have fallen back on the argument that it’s unfair to take income away from those who earn it,” comments economist Mark Thoma (link mine). “But that presumes that the system allocates income fairly, a claim that is hard to swallow given how much financial executives are paid relative to their contribution to the productive process (to name just one example). There’s nothing unfair about using taxes to ‘clawback’ misdirected income, and it won’t harm growth to send income where it should have gone in the first place.”

In other words, the dreaded “redistribution of wealth” — although it would be more accurately described as the “re-redistribution of wealth.” Insanely low tax rates and a corporate culture that rewards even failure with tremendous bonuses represent “Robin Hood in reverse” economics, where those least able to afford it take the hit, in order to take the burden off the wealthy.

Does this create jobs? We’ve already established that the answer is no. And the reason is simple — producers will only offer the goods and service that people will pay for. The less money consumers have to spend, the fewer employees will be needed at any given workplace. By taking money from consumers to cover tax breaks for the wealthy, you do the opposite of creating jobs. Take a look at that chart at the top of the page — tax rates for the top earners are the lowest since 1950 and jobs follow that downward arc. Money in the hands of consumers, not employers, creates jobs. This is not a hypothesis, this is as solid a fact as gravity.

It’s really very easy to explain all of this: employers don’t hire people any time they can afford to — they only hire people when they can’t afford not to. Anyone who argues otherwise is either a liar or someone who doesn’t understand economics, business, or math at all.

-Wisco
Obama Holds Lead Nationally

The Gallup daily tracking poll, which kicked off eight days ago with Mitt Romney leading by two points, now has President Obama in front by 7 points, 49% to 42%.

With a flick of his pen, Florida’s tea party Republican governor, Rick Scott, used a line-item veto to cut funding to the state’s rape crisis centers last week—in the middle of Sexual Assault Awareness Month.