Because it wasn't their idea this time. It was their idea when they used it to oppose Clintoncare in the 90s, but that doesn't matter. All they care about is getting Obama out of office. If that means screwing their constituents out of health care, that's a small price to pay.

If the states fail to set up the exchanges, the feds do it for them. They're just waiting until after November on the chance that Romney wins. If Obama is re-elected they will fall in line, and in a hurry.

One has to remember that the Medicaid program was adopted slowly by states. Arizona was the last state to set up a Medicaid program, and that was in the early 1980s.

Thank you for linking to that article. I love following court stuff though don't have much time to do so and had been looking for an explanation like that. Good read.

The entire "tax increase" meme is pretty bogus.

Only people without health insurance will pay the relatively modest penalty.

But guess what, if they buy insurance they will get a very generous tax credit.

Here is a handy calculator.

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

A single person making 40K a year who does not get health insurance through work will get a tax credit of almost $5 K per year. That is a lot bigger tax cut than the measely $600 penalty that will be paid by the knuckleheads that just plain refuse to get insurance.

Plus if you pay the penalty you are getting a very valuable option to purchase health insurance in the future if you get sick (via the prevision that requires insurers to accept everyone including people with pre-existing conditions).

My guess is the tax cuts will greatly exceed the tax increases.

The discussion in the media is just plain propaganda. It is temping to call the mainstream media incompetent. But they are not. It is just bias masquarading as incompetence.

The states will probably have to raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere to pay for their small share of the medicaid expansion. One could argue that the government should not provide health care to the poor if that is what you believe - and complain about the tax effects of medicaid expansion. But to whine about the penalties being a tax increase is just silly, when they are more than offset by the credits.

Well there are some serious tax increases, just not related to the mandate. Medicare taxes will go up for those making $200k and up and expensive health-care plans will have tax increases. There are also taxes on health insurance providers, drug companies, health product manufacturers, and tanning beds.

Its certainly not "the largest tax increase in history" as many conservatives have claimed (Reagan actually signed a much larger tax increase), but it is a fairly substantial tax increase, at least on the wealthy.

I agree with you.

It is just harping on the penalties as a tax increase that irks me.

Boehner has already said Obamacare is the law of the land. Expect some tinkering here and there that is all. Now we just have to wait until the program becomes a drag on the budget.

People are starting to understand the benefits of the Affordable Care Act. Many people have someone in their family with diabetes, or who had cancer at some point, who no longer will have to deal with pre-existing condition problems with insurers.

Many single-person, or small businesses are seeing that their insurance rates are going to be cheaper through the insurance exchanges.

Many people in their 20s have insurance through their parents now, and might not have otherwise.

Many people forget that in our past history, many people were initially opposed to Social Security and Medicare. Many parents had to move in with children when they couldn't work any longer. I think people started seeing the advantages of independent seniors, since many people didn't like the
idea of their parents moving in.

I recall growing up hearing many older people talking about their in-laws moving in with them, and how they hated one, or both, of their in-laws. Women mostly had this opinion, since they were the ones who had to deal mostly with them. A hovering mother-in-law who bickered all the time, and interfered in marriages, raising of children, finances, etc. Or an in-law with bad habits.

Except the night he said that, he tweeted that the GOP would continue to oppose its implementation and work to repeal it. It's a good indication of the trouble he's having in leading the House GOP away from extremist positions.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/02/which-states-are-building-obamacare-exchanges.php?ref=fpnewsfeedGOP States Invite Washington To Run Their Health Care - includes Missouri and Kansas.

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/b ... illing-us/

Pretty extensive reporting on what some of the problems are in healthcare. Once you introduce phony numbers, it's all downhill.

Been reading the article. Very informative.

What was of interest was that some of the changes in health insurance required by Obamacare will actually drive up the overall cost of health care. One such item was the elimination of maximum payouts, over yearly or lifetime. Overall though it was neither for nor against Obamacare. It was just a 20,000 plus word article that tried to explain why US healthcare is more expensive than other countries.

One of the new requirements is a targeted ratio of admin costs versus health care costs. Sounds like Liberty was a bit admin heavy.

Thought that was only for insurance companies.

No.