SCOTUS upholds Obamacare! - Page 9
Page 9 of 18 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 175
Like Tree297Likes

SCOTUS upholds Obamacare!

This is a discussion on SCOTUS upholds Obamacare! within the Politics forums, part of the Main Category category; Originally Posted by jhodge83 so if someone changes jobs and has to leave the insurance company the already have, but ...

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jhodge83 View Post
    so if someone changes jobs and has to leave the insurance company the already have, but then try to go to the next insurance w/ the new job but cant b/c they already have an issue...that's right? hell no.

    the 26 age limit is mainly for kids that are in college. full time college and no way are you going to be able to get a job that actually has healthcare, so they still pay on their parents plan...BFD. and if most parents are as shitty as you claim, no one will be using this, right?
    With most group plans, you are aware that pre-existing conditions are a non issue, right? Mine have always been covered when I switched companies, no questions asked. Hell yes. Even now that my wife and I have our own business and a small group plan (just her and I, the minimum required to have a group plan), our pre-existing conditions are covered. No questions asked. I have heard of people being denied for the pre-existing condition under a group plan, but again, a rare occurance that does not need a 2500 page piece of legislation to fix. And a good health plan will cover them anyway.
    Should it be the governments decision or the insurers? I believe the insurers, you believe the government.

    Using the fact that the economy sucks now to justify obamacare at all, or even just this age limit issue, is just wrong.

  2. #82
    gunnerbob's Avatar
    gunnerbob is offline ~Gun Junkie~
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    An Alternate Reality, I Assure You...
    Posts
    4,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Chitty View Post
    When people get sick and can't pay their medical bills the rest of us have to make it up in higher healthcare costs. With this they will have to pay just like everybody else.

    When people get insurance knowing they are already sick the rest of us pay for it with higher insurance premiums. With this they will have to have coverage before they get sick.

    When people talk about how this country offers the best healthcare in the world it is shot down by the fact that it doesn't matter how many people in this country can't afford access to that great healthcare. This will make it so that every American has access to that healthcare.

    This legislation does great things for America. Instead of going with socialized healthcare like the rest of the world they have created a new system that is a better fit for the American people. It is politically flawed because it does not respect certain rights of the people. But the people wanted it anyway. Democrats and Republicans shaped it in to what it is today because the people wanted it. Thanks to the Republicans there is no "public option" or state run health insurance program included, so anything related to those concerns are null and void.

    If you already have insurance you're already paying for it. If you don't have insurance you're going to forced to pay your share. Even those that get their insurance subsidized will be forced to pay more in to the healthcare system than they would have if they got sick without this. In many ways it holds more to Republican ideals than it does Democratic ideals otherwise it really would have been socialized.

    This legislation works to solve a real problem in this country without pandering to the social welfare ideals of the rest of the modern world. If it fails you can blame it on the Democrats, if it succeeds the Republicans can take credit for the bipartisan effort. So it's a win-win for the political right in the long run.

    The majority of the people wanted it. Both sides designed and approved it. The Supreme Court upheld it. Deal with it!

    Or threaten to move to Canada out of pure disgust, because that is a hilarious response to this situation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanimator View Post
    [*]Don't be afraid to use sarcasm, mockery and humiliation. They don't respect you. There's no need to pretend you respect them.
    Operation Veterans Relief: http://www.opvr.org/home.html

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PestControl02 View Post
    considering it was written by and for corporate interest- big insurance & big pharma...
    and, the government will use it's monopoly on force to enforce the purchase of their products..

    I believe the correct word for it is fascism.
    fas·cism/ˈfaSHizəm/
    Noun:
    An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
    (in general use) Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

    Definition for totalitarianism:
    Web definitions:
    dictatorship: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.).

    I just felt that the part about the government not being restricted by a constitution was more applicable given that the biggest problem with this legislation seems to be the idea that it is unconstitutional. Since most of the arguments seem to be that this is extremely leftist, it's only the authoritarian part of fascism that would apply. That is unless you're actually open to the idea that this really is a very Republican way to tackle public healthcare, which I would tend to agree with. So I would absolutely agree with your statement.
    "I simply admit to not knowing that which ignorant men claim to be sure of."

  4. #84
    B2Tall's Avatar
    B2Tall is offline Stirrer of the Pot
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SE Florida
    Posts
    1,880

    Default

    As far as I'm concerned, this bill (and Romney's promise to repeal it if elected) will only serve to push a few more people off the fence and over to "our" side.
    (Insert random tough-guy quote here)
    "See my gun?? Aren't you impressed?" - Anonymous sheepdog
    The hardware is the same, but the software is vastly different.

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    2,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    I think not. No amount of spin can eliminate the precedent this traitor established for as long as it takes to get this travesty overturned, if ever. The authority to tax is now, for the first time in our history, extended to taxing our behavior, as opposed to our income, or our purchasing decisions, or any of the already too-all-encompassing authority Congress had before yesterday. This is in addition to the travesty that is ObamaCare, and this now-unlimited authority to tax originated at SCOTUS.

    If there is a silver lining as far as ObamaCare is concerned, it's maybe that the mandate provision can be repealed through budget reconciliation. This is significant in that reconciliation bills only require a simple majority in the Senate (51 votes), as opposed to a filibusterable 60-vote piece of legislation. But of course now, thanks to the indisputably-established activist Chief Justice of SCOTUS, tax bills can originate in the Senate, so there's no telling how that might influence, in the Court's mind, the simple vs. super majority Senate Rules.

    I might agree with you Bikenut, that Roberts could be seen as tactical and stealthy from a more or less conservative perspective in his opinion, if he limited his ruling to apply only to the ACA. But because he didn't, this decision is far-reaching in its precedent-setting capacity, and will become the basis for multitudes of as-yet unconsidered rulings, no different than a relatively narrow ruling in Roe with trimester limitations has given way to unlimited access to abortion up to the very moment before birth, and the federal government usurping parents' rights to control even their pre-teen pregnant girls' access to abortion without so much as mandated notification.

    This is judicial tyranny, plain and simple. No spinning it can turn this sow's ear into a silk purse.

    Blues
    As far as the decision about taxes goes the Supreme Court didn't break new ground since Congress has always had the power to levy taxes.... however... and I'm still mulling this one over...

    Perhaps Justice Roberts did kill ObamaCare since any "tax" has to originate in the House... but ObamaCare law/bill originated in......... the Senate. Time will tell if that means the entire ObamaCare law is void or not.

    As for setting a precedent that behavior can be taxed (and I'll have to think on that more).... it already is in many different ways. In fact anyone who engages in behavior that generates an income for themselves (works at a job) is taxed (income tax) for the behavior of... working.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    As far as the decision about taxes goes the Supreme Court didn't break new ground since Congress has always had the power to levy taxes.... however... and I'm still mulling this one over...

    Perhaps Justice Roberts did kill ObamaCare since any "tax" has to originate in the House... but ObamaCare law/bill originated in......... the Senate. Time will tell if that means the entire ObamaCare law is void or not.

    As for setting a precedent that behavior can be taxed (and I'll have to think on that more).... it already is in many different ways. In fact anyone who engages in behavior that generates an income for themselves (works at a job) is taxed (income tax) for the behavior of... working.
    But this is taxing people for not buying a product. This is a HUGE precedent. It is not a stretch at all to say, if you can be taxed for not buying health care, when the car industry slumps again, can you be taxed for not buying a car? Or how about a tax for not buying solar panels? Or veggies? Only true believers in the benevolence of our leaders can say that this cannot happen, or won't happen.

    The entire bill is a testament to how the moochers have taken over America. Polls before the bill was passed indicated that over 80% of Americans were happy with their health care. Does any reasonable person believe those nunmbers will not fall drastically in coming years?

  7. #87
    golocx4's Avatar
    golocx4 is offline Got Beretta's?
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Elma NY
    Posts
    1,632

    Default

    Being from St. Louis MO. this is not the first time the Supreme Court has been totally screwed up in a decision that made Democrats extremely happy. Can you say Dred Scott? That errant decision was a major contributor in the "War of Northern Aggression"
    And yes for all the victims of the Dept of Education. The Republicans were anti slavery and the Democrats were trying every thing to protect it.

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Chitty View Post
    fas·cism/ˈfaSHizəm/
    Noun:
    An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
    (in general use) Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
    not sure what "right wing" has to do with anything...both of these bought & sold wings have colluded against the liberties of the people.
    bush is a criminal, so is obama...so are all 3 pillars of government as far as I'm concerned.

    here's a different, more accurate definition..
    Fascism
    a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by golocx4 View Post
    Being from St. Louis MO. this is not the first time the Supreme Court has been totally screwed up in a decision that made Democrats extremely happy. Can you say Dred Scott? That errant decision was a major contributor in the "War of Northern Aggression"
    And yes for all the victims of the Dept of Education. The Republicans were anti slavery and the Democrats were trying every thing to protect it.
    and since the start of this country, the political parties have flopped a few times on their stances. the former "Southern Democrats" are now republican.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Madison, AL
    Posts
    4,916

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Chitty View Post
    fas·cism/ˈfaSHizəm/
    Noun:
    An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
    (in general use) Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

    Definition for totalitarianism:
    Web definitions:
    dictatorship: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.).

    I just felt that the part about the government not being restricted by a constitution was more applicable given that the biggest problem with this legislation seems to be the idea that it is unconstitutional. Since most of the arguments seem to be that this is extremely leftist, it's only the authoritarian part of fascism that would apply. That is unless you're actually open to the idea that this really is a very Republican way to tackle public healthcare, which I would tend to agree with. So I would absolutely agree with your statement.
    Between this and your previous post, if you're getting this idiocy from college, they owe you a refund.

    Fascism is "right-wing?" I was curious why you didn't link to any dictionary when posting what appears to be a dictionary-definition of the word. That's easy to figure out though. I searched on the following text from your post:

    fas·cism/ˈfaSHizəm/
    Noun:
    An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
    It only shows up as simple text no matter where you look, no links anywhere, and the overwhelming majority of the first page of results go to left-wing forums or FaceBook pages or blogs. Not a single link to the source of that definition that I could find out of 20 first-page results.

    Now, if you're interested in the true definition of fascism, let's take a look at Dictionary.com's:

    fas·cism

    noun [fash-iz-uhm]

    1. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

    2. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.

    3. ( initial capital letter ) a fascist movement, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
    How about Merriam Webster's?

    1: (often capitalized) - a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

    2: - a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>
    Gee, no mention of it being exclusive to a right-wing ideology. Why do you suppose that is? Because it's not!

    Fascism is decidedly left-wing, as is Nazism, oligarchy, and hold onto your leftist hat, but Democracy too is closer to fascism than is a constitutional republic, whether or not those forms of government are run by right or left-wingers.

    This video should convince you of the rightness of the above if anything you've learned in school has taught you to think instead of simply follow your obvious leftist indoctrination.

    As to your previous post's analysis of the prudence (or lack thereof) of ObamaCare, that's hardly the question being discussed in this thread. This is about the constitutionality of the ruling. If you're going to say it's constitutional on the basis of Roberts articulating it as his "duty" to find a way to make it so, then show us in the Constitution where that duty is imposed upon him as a component of his oath to uphold that (now) meaningless document. Best of luck with that.

    Blues
    I pray for peace. Peace and justice. If we can't have both, I choose justice.

Page 9 of 18 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •