|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On June 29 2012 02:29 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:24 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote:
Honestly, Republicans should be jumping for joy right now.
Roberts was very deliberate in stating that the ACA is constitutional, ONLY because for all intents and purposes it's not 'mandatory', but non-participation is penalized through a tax.
This is like Obama handing the Supreme Court a gun, and Roberts loading it with a silver bullet and handing it to the Republicans.
Obama must defend the ACA as a potential tax penalty, and not just the merits of Health Care reform overall.
I agree. I'm surprised by the decision, but I can't describe how I feel as upset. I have been pondering ramifications of the decision, and I see bad for liberals and good for conservatives. Republicans are about to put a vote to the House on repealing this, and every Democrat will now have to either vote against the ACA or vote for this huge tax increase, which they will have difficulty defending leading up to November. Not a chance in hell the vote will happen in the Senate, but you can bet every Democrat Senator up for election in November 2012 will have to answer that question, with the context that it is a tax. Extreme liberals will get re-elected anyways, but it's going to get interesting in the battleground states. I'm still not sure which part of obamacare is a "massive tax increase." My taxes haven't budged, nor has my income.
The "penalty" imposed for not purchasing health insurance is a tax. The taxes upon everyone who chose not to purchase it, even though they can afford it, have increased. The taxes upon employers who don't provide whatever health insurance is required by ACA have just had their taxes increased. Open your eyes and you shall see the sky is blue.
|
On June 29 2012 02:29 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:24 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote:
Honestly, Republicans should be jumping for joy right now.
Roberts was very deliberate in stating that the ACA is constitutional, ONLY because for all intents and purposes it's not 'mandatory', but non-participation is penalized through a tax.
This is like Obama handing the Supreme Court a gun, and Roberts loading it with a silver bullet and handing it to the Republicans.
Obama must defend the ACA as a potential tax penalty, and not just the merits of Health Care reform overall.
I agree. I'm surprised by the decision, but I can't describe how I feel as upset. I have been pondering ramifications of the decision, and I see bad for liberals and good for conservatives. Republicans are about to put a vote to the House on repealing this, and every Democrat will now have to either vote against the ACA or vote for this huge tax increase, which they will have difficulty defending leading up to November. Not a chance in hell the vote will happen in the Senate, but you can bet every Democrat Senator up for election in November 2012 will have to answer that question, with the context that it is a tax. Extreme liberals will get re-elected anyways, but it's going to get interesting in the battleground states. Calling it a tax is semantics and politics. Sure, it's legally valid semantics now. But it's still just wordplay, it makes absolutely no difference to the underlying mechanics and health care effects of Obamacare.
But now Romney gets to claim that Obama 'raised taxes' with the hated Obamacare and the braindead part of the american electorate will eat it up and continue to live in their illusion that they live the independent, american way while picking up their foodstamps.
It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for. Rejection of Obamacare would have been a major blow to his presidency, making him seem powerless and fickle. Now its just a difference of opinion between the two candidates, and Romney has to overcome his record as a governor and general flipflopper.
|
On June 29 2012 02:15 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:10 Linwelin wrote:On June 29 2012 02:07 Vega62a wrote:On June 29 2012 02:06 msl wrote:On June 29 2012 02:00 Linwelin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:58 msl wrote:On June 29 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:49 wswordsmen wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:
[quote]
I'm politically very conservative. And you know, I don't know that I would be too upset if the Federal government increased wealfare with a greater subsidies for healthcare. My issue is with the individual mandate, it takes away my freedom to decide whether or not I want to purchase health insurance. I have a right to make decisions about my life, if that means I get sick and end up $100,000 in debt so be it. It's my risk to take, and the Federal government has no business to tell me otherwise. That's the problem that us "small government people" have with the law. Take away the individual mandate, there wouldn't be even half as much furor over the law.
And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less.
The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do. And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. The mandate is necessary in order to keep the law affordable, If not for the mandate people would be paying more, because the risk pool would be insufficiently large to handle all the people with preexisting conditions coming into the insurance market, due to the provision that people can't be turned down for the preexisting conditions. There were other ways to do this, but the need to get a republican to go along with this meant they had to go for the most conservative option (the mandate) in order to get it passed. Speaking of "affordable". I'm not 100% up on Greece and their health care, but does Greece provide "affordable" healthcare ? And by affordable, are we talking about for the individuals receiving the healthcare alone, or society as a whole ? Greece theoreticly has universal health-care, but due to the fact that you a) have to bribe a doctor to even see you and b) they are running out of medical supplies as the big suppliers won't deliver anymore due to not getting paid it is really is a rather theoretical health-care system for the less well-off at the moment. No idea about your 2nd point but 1st one is completely false Well, I do not claim first-hand knowledge, I just read the report by Transparency International that explicitly said so. Is there even a point in arguing about Greece? It's a massive straw-man by conservatives for all the problems with liberal policies which completely neglects the massive difference between the countries. Oh I agree with you that comparing Greece and the US is pointless. I was simply correcting him The only reason I mentioned Greece was to get an understanding of what people consider "Affordable" to mean. Because clearly it's not Affordable for Greece. I argue the term "Affordable" should not only related to the individual receiving the benefit, but to the affordability for the government providing that service as well. I don't consider it affordable when viewed from that perspective, and it's a joke that the law is named, in part, "Affordable".
you havent put down any kind of numbers to back up anything you have posted in this thread, and continuously spout generalizations, semantics, and nonsensical comparisons. you are pretty much the embodiment of everything that the world points and laughs at regarding those americans who appose this bill. people who are not informed, or rather, people who refuse to become informed.
|
Despite the fact the President won in the court, the word "tax" is amazing fodder for the Republicans and they won't shut up about it between now and November.
|
On June 29 2012 02:34 On_Slaught wrote:
Despite the fact the President won in the court, the word "tax" is amazing fodder for the Republicans and they won't shut up about it between now and November.
Yes, using the word "tax" is just an appeal to emotion, while the mechanics of the law and it's real effects on people are unchanged, the same as it was yesterday.
|
On June 28 2012 23:15 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 23:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2012 23:06 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 23:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2012 22:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 21:43 BluePanther wrote:
It just sets a bad precedent, because if they find this legal, the next time they use this method it may not be on a product as useful to everyone. Every other advanced country in the world has universal healthcare. So how bad is the precedent really? As has been explained ad nauseum throughout the thread, this isn't just about healthcare. In fact, this case isn't really about healthcare at all. I'm disagreeing with his argument which IS about healthcare, and in particular the precedent that it sets. If you don't want to argue about this point, then stop talking. No, his argument is not about healthcare. Go re-read it again: "It just sets a bad precedent, because if they find this legal, the next time they use this method it may not be on a product as useful to everyone." We in the Netherlands have to buy health insurance. Never has something been proposed that makes us buy a product that is not useful to everyone. You're just scare mongering. Basic health insurance (which covers everything a person needs) costs me about €100/month which is about $125. How much does such insurance costs in the US?
About $400 per month
|
On June 29 2012 02:22 Leth0 wrote:
Terrible decision by our 'supreme court'. Sure , the thought of everyone having health care is a nice thought, but to penalize the uninsured in any way is communism, plain and simple. I'm a healthy man, I take care of myself, and I pay for my own healthcare, but I had that choice and I did it on my own. I could of just as easily decided that it was not needed and saved myself some money, but not anymore, the choice is no longer yours. It's nanny state to the extreme, the US government is not everyones mommy and daddy, it really needs to stop acting like it.
The people without money and without insurance, when they need medical treatment, are basically robbing you. You pay more money for your treatment, because the hospital will never get payed by the poor people they treated, and have to increase the price for you to balance their finances. Perhaps you yourself would in the future be someone that is a drain on everyone else, get cancer and need treatment while at the same time losing your ability to work and earn money for your healthcare. Looking at it like this, it can be seen as more fair and conservative to have everyone pay for insurance. At least you can choose an insurance that rewards you for being healthy and fit, which you would not be able to do in a single payer system.
|
To say you don't want to be forced to buy insurance is pretty selfish, IMO.
If you don't have insurance and get in a car wreck and get taken to the hospital, they're not going to turn you away because you have no insurance. They're going to try to save your life. And that bill gets passed along to everyone else, since you can't pay for it.
Everyone insured -> less cost for each individual.
|
On June 29 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:
It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for.
Almost too bad there's no way we can run an experiment to see  If ACA had been overturned, that would take away arguably Romney's biggest attack against Obama - the unpopularity of "Obamacare". However a ruling overturning the law might have also taken away any little bit of wind liberals have in their sails.
|
On June 29 2012 02:37 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:34 On_Slaught wrote:
Despite the fact the President won in the court, the word "tax" is amazing fodder for the Republicans and they won't shut up about it between now and November. Yes, using the word "tax" is just an appeal to emotion, while the mechanics of the law and it's real effects on people are unchanged, the same as it was yesterday.
I think this ruling makes Obamas task of explaining the law even more difficult. Stupid people think that they are being taxed even if they already have insurance.
|
On June 29 2012 02:34 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:15 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 02:10 Linwelin wrote:On June 29 2012 02:07 Vega62a wrote:On June 29 2012 02:06 msl wrote:On June 29 2012 02:00 Linwelin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:58 msl wrote:On June 29 2012 01:53 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 01:49 wswordsmen wrote:On June 29 2012 01:43 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
The mandate is the conservative compromise to the law. The only part of the law that you disagree with is the part that the conservatives and republicans pushed for. This is what the majority of Americans are saying (watch the Young Turks video I posted earlier). So yea, fuck the mandate, but the rest of the law is solid. And if you say that we have to have the mandate in order to fix our healthcare, then that's what we should do.
And the fact that $400/month isn't expensive to you shows just how complacent the American public has become with our ridiculous healthcare costs. The mandate is necessary in order to keep the law affordable, If not for the mandate people would be paying more, because the risk pool would be insufficiently large to handle all the people with preexisting conditions coming into the insurance market, due to the provision that people can't be turned down for the preexisting conditions. There were other ways to do this, but the need to get a republican to go along with this meant they had to go for the most conservative option (the mandate) in order to get it passed. Speaking of "affordable". I'm not 100% up on Greece and their health care, but does Greece provide "affordable" healthcare ? And by affordable, are we talking about for the individuals receiving the healthcare alone, or society as a whole ? Greece theoreticly has universal health-care, but due to the fact that you a) have to bribe a doctor to even see you and b) they are running out of medical supplies as the big suppliers won't deliver anymore due to not getting paid it is really is a rather theoretical health-care system for the less well-off at the moment. No idea about your 2nd point but 1st one is completely false Well, I do not claim first-hand knowledge, I just read the report by Transparency International that explicitly said so. Is there even a point in arguing about Greece? It's a massive straw-man by conservatives for all the problems with liberal policies which completely neglects the massive difference between the countries. Oh I agree with you that comparing Greece and the US is pointless. I was simply correcting him The only reason I mentioned Greece was to get an understanding of what people consider "Affordable" to mean. Because clearly it's not Affordable for Greece. I argue the term "Affordable" should not only related to the individual receiving the benefit, but to the affordability for the government providing that service as well. I don't consider it affordable when viewed from that perspective, and it's a joke that the law is named, in part, "Affordable". you havent put down any kind of numbers to back up anything you have posted in this thread, and continuously spout generalizations, semantics, and nonsensical comparisons. you are pretty much the embodiment of everything that the world points and laughs at regarding those americans who appose this bill. people who are not informed, or rather, people who refuse to become informed.
I think the point is that Obamacare will require new government spending which will require new taxation / debt to pay for. So "affordable" to one party may not mean "affordable" to another party. Obamacare mostly shifts costs from one person to another so asking "affordable to whom?" is a valid point to bring up.
|
On June 29 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:29 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 29 2012 02:24 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote:
Honestly, Republicans should be jumping for joy right now.
Roberts was very deliberate in stating that the ACA is constitutional, ONLY because for all intents and purposes it's not 'mandatory', but non-participation is penalized through a tax.
This is like Obama handing the Supreme Court a gun, and Roberts loading it with a silver bullet and handing it to the Republicans.
Obama must defend the ACA as a potential tax penalty, and not just the merits of Health Care reform overall.
I agree. I'm surprised by the decision, but I can't describe how I feel as upset. I have been pondering ramifications of the decision, and I see bad for liberals and good for conservatives. Republicans are about to put a vote to the House on repealing this, and every Democrat will now have to either vote against the ACA or vote for this huge tax increase, which they will have difficulty defending leading up to November. Not a chance in hell the vote will happen in the Senate, but you can bet every Democrat Senator up for election in November 2012 will have to answer that question, with the context that it is a tax. Extreme liberals will get re-elected anyways, but it's going to get interesting in the battleground states. Calling it a tax is semantics and politics. Sure, it's legally valid semantics now. But it's still just wordplay, it makes absolutely no difference to the underlying mechanics and health care effects of Obamacare. But now Romney gets to claim that Obama 'raised taxes' with the hated Obamacare and the braindead part of the american electorate will eat it up and continue to live in their illusion that they live the independent, american way while picking up their foodstamps. It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for.
I couldn't disagree more. Even if Obama gets re-elected, which I don't doubt, there isn't a chance in hell he will have a Democrat-controlled House and Senate. At least one House of Congress will be held my Republicans, if not both. In which case, Obama will either accomplish absolutely nothing without "giving-in" to Republicans, which he has barely done in his first 4 years, or he will go around Congress and implement his policies administratively through agency regulations. While effective for his term, public perception will turn away from him and his party, resulting in damage to the Democrat party, in successive elections. So, it might be a good outcome for Obama, but as the consequences play out, it will be very bad for Democrats and liberals as a result of how Obama's second term plays out. And that's "if" he's re-elected. If he loses, Romney will be in with probably Republican control of both Houses of Congress, as that would be a likely result in the "down-the-ballot" elections if it's an election where Romney wins. Not sure if repeal would go through, as Dems could filibuster, but they could surely give exemptions to everyone and everything, and cut funding, which Dems couldn't stop.
|
On June 29 2012 02:31 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:29 Vega62a wrote:On June 29 2012 02:24 Kaitlin wrote:On June 29 2012 02:20 Defacer wrote:
Honestly, Republicans should be jumping for joy right now.
Roberts was very deliberate in stating that the ACA is constitutional, ONLY because for all intents and purposes it's not 'mandatory', but non-participation is penalized through a tax.
This is like Obama handing the Supreme Court a gun, and Roberts loading it with a silver bullet and handing it to the Republicans.
Obama must defend the ACA as a potential tax penalty, and not just the merits of Health Care reform overall.
I agree. I'm surprised by the decision, but I can't describe how I feel as upset. I have been pondering ramifications of the decision, and I see bad for liberals and good for conservatives. Republicans are about to put a vote to the House on repealing this, and every Democrat will now have to either vote against the ACA or vote for this huge tax increase, which they will have difficulty defending leading up to November. Not a chance in hell the vote will happen in the Senate, but you can bet every Democrat Senator up for election in November 2012 will have to answer that question, with the context that it is a tax. Extreme liberals will get re-elected anyways, but it's going to get interesting in the battleground states. I'm still not sure which part of obamacare is a "massive tax increase." My taxes haven't budged, nor has my income. The "penalty" imposed for not purchasing health insurance is a tax. The taxes upon everyone who chose not to purchase it, even though they can afford it, have increased. The taxes upon employers who don't provide whatever health insurance is required by ACA have just had their taxes increased. Open your eyes and you shall see the sky is blue.
Okay, so those people who have not previously purchased health insurance have now essentially had their post-tax income lowered. Even if you paint that as a tax increase (you can call it whatever you want), it's not massive, because massive would be lowering their income significantly (it's not) and it would be widespread (it's not). Your use of hyperbole is absurd, and you should know better. You're attempting to convince people who will not be impacted by this ruling in the slightest that they're about to see their incomes drop. It's deceptive, and if you're attempting to make a point, you should do so honestly.
|
This was Obama's campaign promise. If he couldn't deliver it then why would people who voted him into office vote for him again?
Republicans are kidding themselves. A large majority of the US population has always supported health care reform and public and/or universal health care. This goes back like 60 years.
Now the elite has always opposed it but today it has become such an expensive bureaucracy and a huge drag on the US economy that business started to pressure the democrats to do something about it.
The reason why the polls haven't been so good for 'Obamacare' specifically is because for most people it doesn't go far enough. In fact, it won't really fix the main issues. It doesn't give the government purchasing power.to drive down the price, it doesn't hammer down the insurance companies and it only partially prevents people requiring expensive hospital treatment because they never got that 10 cent pill.
I am against Obamacare. If there is no reform, there will be another plan very very soon. If the republicans manage to stop Obamacare it will hurt them hugely in the future. But if the democrat's plan is passed, that will probably be a new status quo for a long time where the US still won't have a first world health care system.
|
On June 29 2012 02:37 Signet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:
It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for. Almost too bad there's no way we can run an experiment to see If ACA had been overturned, that would take away arguably Romney's biggest attack against Obama - the unpopularity of "Obamacare". However a ruling overturning the law might have also taken away any little bit of wind liberals have in their sails.
I'd argue that Obama essentially had the ACA endorsed by the supreme court, which makes Obama look a hell of a lot more legitimate and authoritative. It gave the ACA a ton of credibility. And its hard to argue the supreme court ignores the constitution when they just allowed lying about military medals as protection of freedom of speech.
|
On June 29 2012 02:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:37 Signet wrote:On June 29 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:
It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for. Almost too bad there's no way we can run an experiment to see If ACA had been overturned, that would take away arguably Romney's biggest attack against Obama - the unpopularity of "Obamacare". However a ruling overturning the law might have also taken away any little bit of wind liberals have in their sails. I'd argue that Obama essentially had the ACA endorsed by the supreme court, which makes Obama look a hell of a lot more legitimate and authoritative. It gave the ACA a ton of credibility. And its hard to argue the supreme court ignores the constitution when they just allowed lying about military medals as protection of freedom of speech.
It makes him look legitimate and authoritative if and only if he embraces the fact that he has imposed this tax. As long as he contends that it was never his intention for this to be considered a tax, he looks illegitimate, inauthoritative, and a complete imbecile as a 'Constitutional Law Professor'.
|
This will probably hurt Obama in the fall, majority of americans do not support the mandate. The republicans will attack Obama on the fact that he just raised taxes on everyone which is undeniably true because of the way the supreme court upheld the law. However there are many points within the law that the majority of americans agree with, such as coverage for pre-existing conditions, being able to take on your parent's coverage til 26, and having 50 workers forces you to cover them. Obama needs to actually fucking defend his bill and tell people whats really in it, and that it's not as bad as people claim. As for the mandate itself, health insurance should be required imo, the same way car insurance is. It lowers the cost for the individual and keeps a generally healthier society.
|
On June 29 2012 02:51 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:44 Mohdoo wrote:On June 29 2012 02:37 Signet wrote:On June 29 2012 02:33 Derez wrote:
It's obviously gonna be an issue in the election, but this outcome is the best Obama could have hoped for. Almost too bad there's no way we can run an experiment to see If ACA had been overturned, that would take away arguably Romney's biggest attack against Obama - the unpopularity of "Obamacare". However a ruling overturning the law might have also taken away any little bit of wind liberals have in their sails. I'd argue that Obama essentially had the ACA endorsed by the supreme court, which makes Obama look a hell of a lot more legitimate and authoritative. It gave the ACA a ton of credibility. And its hard to argue the supreme court ignores the constitution when they just allowed lying about military medals as protection of freedom of speech. It makes him look legitimate and authoritative if and only if he embraces the fact that he has imposed this tax. As long as he contends that it was never his intention for this to be considered a tax, he looks illegitimate, inauthoritative, and a complete imbecile as a 'Constitutional Law Professor'.
Only if you're the kind of person who believes that if the smartest people in the room correct you on a point (SCOTUS can be safely considered the smartest people in the room on the subject of constitutional law) then you're an imbecile. Which you should not be, since you should have some depth of thought.
I swear you must have taken classes in hyperbole. You're quite good at it.
|
On June 29 2012 02:14 SkytoM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 01:13 TheToast wrote:
And PS, basic individual health insurance isn't that expensive. For a healthy person, you can get coverage for like $400 a month or less.
For an european, this is basically the most hilarious statement in this complete thread. Totally ivory tower opinion. For $400/month, I don't get "basic" health care, I get "the most uber imba, everything" health care.
You also pay more for it through taxes, we don't.
On June 29 2012 02:22 Leth0 wrote:
Terrible decision by our 'supreme court'. Sure , the thought of everyone having health care is a nice thought, but to penalize the uninsured in any way is communism, plain and simple. I'm a healthy man, I take care of myself, and I pay for my own healthcare, but I had that choice and I did it on my own. I could of just as easily decided that it was not needed and saved myself some money, but not anymore, the choice is no longer yours. It's nanny state to the extreme, the US government is not everyones mommy and daddy, it really needs to stop acting like it.
I agree with you, but I don't know why you put the Supreme Court in half quotes. Lol they're still called the Supreme Court even if you disagree with their decision.
|
On June 29 2012 02:37 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2012 02:34 On_Slaught wrote:
Despite the fact the President won in the court, the word "tax" is amazing fodder for the Republicans and they won't shut up about it between now and November. Yes, using the word "tax" is just an appeal to emotion, while the mechanics of the law and it's real effects on people are unchanged, the same as it was yesterday.
Since when have elections ever been anything but tapping into peoples emotions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
