Poll: 56% Americans want opponents of the health-care law to move on

[^_^ 5,021]

The Supreme Court ruling on health care did not win the law new supporters – but, in a new Kaiser Family Foundation poll, it does look like Americans want to see the national debate move past the law.

Fifty-six percent of all those surveyed want to see the law’s opponents “move on to other national issues” rather than “continue to block the law from being implemented:”

This poll won’t thrill Republicans. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling, they quickly pivoted to measures to stall Obamacare. Some are symbolic: A House vote to repeal the health reform law, scheduled for next week, is dead-on-arrival in the Senate. Some, like Republican governors opting out of the Medicaid expansion, are more concrete.

All of them though, are intended to do one thing: Make the future of health reform appear in limbo, part of a continuing debate over the law.

This Kaiser poll suggests that’s not how most Americans see the issue. Even though a lot of people don’t like the law – only 41 percent rated it favorably in this same poll – it looks like most see it as the law of the land going forward.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/02/poll-58-americans-want-opponents-of-the-health-care-law-to-move-on/

[Teddy B 17,252]

The Supreme Court ruling on health care did not win the law new supporters – but, in a new Kaiser Family Foundation poll, it does look like Americans want to see the national debate move past the law.

Fifty-six percent of all those surveyed want to see the law’s opponents “move on to other national issues” rather than “continue to block the law from being implemented:”

This poll won’t thrill Republicans. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling, they quickly pivoted to measures to stall Obamacare. Some are symbolic: A House vote to repeal the health reform law, scheduled for next week, is dead-on-arrival in the Senate. Some, like Republican governors opting out of the Medicaid expansion, are more concrete.

All of them though, are intended to do one thing: Make the future of health reform appear in limbo, part of a continuing debate over the law.

This Kaiser poll suggests that’s not how most Americans see the issue. Even though a lot of people don’t like the law – only 41 percent rated it favorably in this same poll – it looks like most see it as the law of the land going forward.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/02/poll-58-americans-want-opponents-of-the-health-care-law-to-move-on/

I agree, it makes no sense to continue this losing battle. Let's start focusing on healthcare reform to make it better and less expensive and move onto other issues like securing our borders, jobs and the economy.

[mawilson 2,133]

Just like Roe v Wade... 30 years later, Republicans still won't give up and accept that abortion is a right.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

To be fair most Americans who didn't like Obamacare didn't like it because they felt the bill didn't go far enough (Public option, universal health care etc etc)

[JohnR! 5,495]

Just like Roe v Wade... 30 years later, Republicans still won't give up and accept that abortion is a right.

Alas they do support abortion for them. It is only abortion for others they are against...

It is no different than their position in relation to government. They support smaller government on their lives, but welcome the notion of government intrusion on the life of others.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Gegel

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Just like Roe v Wade... 30 years later, Republicans still won't give up and accept that abortion is a right.

They are for the most part always on the wrong side of history.

[Harsh_77 718]

Is the Obama Care Tax or Contribution?

[^_^ 5,021]

Is the Obama Care Tax or Contribution?

The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that thosesubject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individualmandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated asa “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.

The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act.

The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. Pp. 11–

15.

[Harsh_77 718]

The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that thosesubject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individualmandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated asa “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.

The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act.

The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. Pp. 11–

15.

Interesting coz Supreme court says its Tax, while Obama administration says its not tax.

As per Supreme Court if it is not taxed it cannot be enforced or mandatory…..so then why is Obama Care forced?

[^_^ 5,021]

The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that thosesubject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individualmandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated asa “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act.

The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act.

The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. Pp. 11–

15.

Interesting coz Supreme court says its Tax, while Obama administration says its not tax.

As per Supreme Court if it is not taxed it cannot be enforced or mandatory…..so then why is Obama Care forced?

Read it again. The text I pasted is directly from the SCOTUS opinion.

[Harsh_77 718]

Read it again. The text I pasted is directly from the SCOTUS opinion.

Read the first line "The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,”

That means it is a tax....same time can now the Tax be called Penalty or someone's retirement fund too?

Tax is tax plain and simple... Tax has it's defination penalty has its defination.

I am sure Obama does not want to call this tax and hence it was called Penalty....as he had promised no new taxes as his election promise.

[^_^ 5,021]

Read the first line ...

Yeah, you kinda have to read the whole thing homeboy.

[Harsh_77 718]

Yeah, you kinda have to read the whole thing homeboy.

My question was simple is it a Tax or Contribution(Penalty) instead I got your answer which was more complicated.

Supreme court and Obama administration themselves having a some confusion is it a Tax or not.

[Captain Oates 911]

My question was simple is it a Tax or Contribution(Penalty) instead I got your answer which was more complicated.

Supreme court and Obama administration themselves having a some confusion is it a Tax or not.

Only applies to 1% and they wont pay

so its diversion - repubs clutching at straws

It must be tough being one right now

I don't want republicans to move on - I want to round them up and use them for slave labor in public hospitals until they finally become human and stop being so cruel and selfish and downright un-christian in trying to prevent universal health care and gather the profits to themselves

These are the people who sell fructose to the obese and cigarettes to the poor and ignorant

They have no worth, and slave labor is too good for them - but I am feeling charitable today

[rocks 494]

Alas they do support abortion for them. It is only abortion for others they are against...

It is no different than their position in relation to government. They support smaller government on their lives, but welcome the notion of government intrusion on the life of others.

The republicans passed a law to try and shut down the only abortion clinic in this state close. This is after we just voted "no" to ban abortions. Apparently they'll ask you your opinion and then ignore you and do what they want anyway.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Jordan issued a temporary restraining order Sunday to stop Mississippi from enforcing a law requiring any physician doing abortions at the clinic to be an OB-GYN with privileges to admit patients to a local hospital. The order came the same day the law was to take effect.

The two physicians who do abortions there have applied for hospital privileges but haven't been granted them. Ms. Derzis said she doesn't expect them to be given the access, partly because she believes hospitals don't want abortion protesters outside on their sidewalks.

The clinic filed a federal lawsuit June 27, challenging the law's constitutionality under Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established a nationwide right to abortion. The lawsuit also says the admitting privileges requirement isn't medically necessary.

Link