• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 11:04
CEST 17:04
KST 00:04
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy5uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event14Serral wins EWC 202549Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 202510Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202580
Community News
Weekly Cups (Aug 4-10): MaxPax wins a triple5SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 195Weekly Cups (Jul 28-Aug 3): herO doubles up6LiuLi Cup - August 2025 Tournaments5[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder10
StarCraft 2
General
RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread #1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time Lambo Talks: The Future of SC2 and more... Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event
Tourneys
Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series SEL Masters #5 - Korea vs Russia (SC Evo) Enki Epic Series #5 - TaeJa vs Classic (SC Evo) ByuN vs TaeJa Bo7 SC Evo Showmatch
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 486 Watch the Skies Mutation # 485 Death from Below Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather
Brood War
General
New season has just come in ladder Google Play ASL (Season 20) Announced ASL20 Pre-season Tier List ranking! BW General Discussion BSL Polish World Championship 2025 20-21 September
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues KCM 2025 Season 3 Small VOD Thread 2.0 [ASL20] Online Qualifiers Day 2
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting Muta micro map competition
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Nintendo Switch Thread Beyond All Reason [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok)
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI Bitcoin discussion thread
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread [Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Gaming After Dark: Poor Slee…
TrAiDoS
[Girl blog} My fema…
artosisisthebest
Sharpening the Filtration…
frozenclaw
ASL S20 English Commentary…
namkraft
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 667 users

The Affordable Healthcare Act in the U.S. Supreme Court -…

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 64 65 66 67 68 102 Next
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23
Irre
Profile Joined August 2010
United States646 Posts
June 28 2012 19:24 GMT
#1301
anyone catch Romney's response to the Healthcare decision? It was a disgusting display of lies and distortion of the Healthcare BIll. What makes it worse is it was a model of HIS healthcare plan, and REPUBLICANS Plan back in the 90s...really shows how far our politics have degraded that someone as poisonous as Mitt Romney could get to the top a major party ticket to lead the country.
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
June 28 2012 19:25 GMT
#1302
On June 29 2012 03:20 CaptainCrush wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2012 03:11 hzflank wrote:
Most people consider nationalised health care to be cheaper than privatised health care. The reason that your Medicare is so expensive is because your hospitals are for-profit organisations. Nationalised health care cuts out the middle man (insurance companies).


Everyone keeps saying this, but what you guys fail to realize is that we already know this, and some of us want to keep it that way. Under socialized medicine, sure you can pick your doc, but all the docs recieve the same amount of money from the government for their services.

I personally want a free market society, even if it is more expensive because I want to be able to go to a doc who is willing to put forth the extra effort. Think about it, why would doctors or care givers go the extra mile when they all get paid the same thing? The only time they might do that is if they are in danger of losing buisness all together.

I'm sorry some people cant afford it but at some point its no longer my job to provide for them or even care. It sounds cold but I didnt work my ass off in college, nor do I continue to work my ass off so that some lazy sack of shit can get the healthcare that they dont deserve on my nickle. This law not only provides health care to those individuals but also exempts them from the tax if their income is below a certain threshold....

Did I mention that Obama has elected 3 supreme court justices during his term? This is socialism of the highest degree, how can anyone be excited over this!?!?

First, strangely, I know a lot of doctors who put the extra effort, seems to contradict your statement.

Secondly, what about hard working people who cannot afford healthcare, they are also lazy sacks of shit ? Also what is wrong with giving money to support some people if you will actually save money doing that compared to your current system.
Doublemint
Profile Joined July 2011
Austria8539 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-06-28 19:27:10
June 28 2012 19:25 GMT
#1303


So, because the Supreme Court decided one way I can't disagree with it? I would point out there were four justices in disagreement with the majority ruling. So their opinion just doesn't count? If four highly intelligent, highly educated legal minds are arguing against the ruling, there is at obviously a legitimate argument to be made against the law. I would say you're being a sore winner with the attitude that all dissenting opinions are now invalid. That's rediculous.

The law may have been ruled constitutional by a plurality of justices, but I reserve my right to agree with Justice Kennedy and the other opposing Justices. If you don't like it, well that's too bad.


God forbid, I don't want you not being able to give your opinion on the ruling - you just have to acknowledge it. But as you said 4 judges voted against it - and 5 at least equally intelligent and educated judges for it.

Not the least ridiculous to say the"legal"opinions are "invalid" for this case now, as this case is decided and not going to change any time soon.

Whether ObamaCare will survive the political attacks or is being repealed after Romney's victory however remains to be seen.
ixi.genocide
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States981 Posts
June 28 2012 19:26 GMT
#1304
On June 29 2012 04:17 Chocolate wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2012 04:12 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 29 2012 04:08 Defacer wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances.


Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country.


What a load of BS this is. Like there aren't millions of Republicans that don't vote on single issues, like gay marriage, or abortion, or gun control etc.

Some people vote for the good of a country, some people vote for themselves. It's a bi-partisan characteristic that's inevitable in a democracy.

I can guarantee, all the billionaires that are financing the Romney campaign right now could give two shits about their country, and their primary motivation is getting a massive tax break they might be able to hoard to themselves.


Yeah, that totally makes sense. They give millions to politicians so they don't have to pay higher taxes. Of course, the amounts they give to these politicians exceeds the additional amount they would pay in taxes. Makes total sense.

They can ask for other rewards from the politician, you know.


That is called corruption and is a different issue.
TheToast
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States4808 Posts
June 28 2012 19:27 GMT
#1305
On June 29 2012 04:24 xDaunt wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2012 04:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
On June 29 2012 04:16 xDaunt wrote:
On June 29 2012 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
On June 29 2012 04:09 TheToast wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I have a really honest but curious question to ask to Republican TL'ers here: You are pissed at Roberts today but not yesterday on his stance on Citnzens United which is the poster boy of big government telling a State what it can and cannot do. Hypocrisy no?


I'm not so much pissed at Roberts, but I do disagree with him. I thought the ruling was a bit bizzare, it was obviously a question of how to interpret the commerce clause. To side step that by declairing the individual mandate a tax is ignoring the entire issue.

And wasn't Citizens United about limiting political contributions to candidates from non-profit organizations and corporations? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

On June 29 2012 03:54 Doublemint wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:47 TheToast wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:39 farvacola wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:30 MaYuu wrote:
[quote]

To me it's kind of absurd to see it as a product, it's more like a service everyone should be eligable to. Even if you don't wanna pay for it right now, there will be some time when you'll be happy you did, and you'll be greatfull that everyone paid all this time so you and everyone else could get good care. Don't you agree that health care should be about helping people first hand, and getting a profit second hand?


But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion.

Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.

While it doesn't preclude profit-making per se, the act itself......

Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions.

Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26.

Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers.

Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits.

Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead).

Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it.

In other words, any wiggle room insurance companies previously had in terms of squeezing out dollar signs has been reduced significantly.


Which will just raise insurance premiums for everyone across the board and insurance companies will keep making money.

On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:
But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion.

Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.


I don't get this objection. Aren't you also forced to pay for streetlights? Highways? Social security? Aren't those taxes also a clear violation of your freedom to choose? It seems to me like a convenient excuse to object to programs you personally don't want to see implemented.


There's a clear difference between saying one needs to pay a small percentage of their income to the state to run basic government services and mandating that one has to buy a specific product.

The other issue is I still don't think it's constitutional. Bypassing the commerce clause by calling the individual mandate a "tax" is bizzare if not outright stupid.


What needs to happen to convince you then? Isn't the Supreme Court the "supreme" Court in your country which is based ( one might say very intelligently so) on checks and balances?

Man up and don't be a sore loser...

Personal responsibility all the way, even if one is on the losing side of a legal argument - no?


So, because the Supreme Court decided one way I can't disagree with it? I would point out there were four justices in disagreement with the majority ruling. So their opinion just doesn't count? If four highly intelligent, highly educated legal minds are arguing against the ruling, there is at obviously a legitimate argument to be made against the law. I would say you're being a sore winner with the attitude that all dissenting opinions are now invalid. That's rediculous.

The law may have been ruled constitutional by a plurality of justices, but I reserve my right to agree with Justice Kennedy and the other opposing Justices. If you don't like it, well that's too bad.



But the SCOTUS ruling struck down a STATE law.


What in the world are you talking about? Citizen's United struck down parts McCain-Feingold, which is a federal law.



I'm talking about the ruling yesterday:

The Supreme Court has struck down a Montana ban on corporate political money, ruling 5 to 4 that the controversial 2010 Citizens United ruling applies to state and local elections.

The court broke in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock along the same lines as in the original Citizens United case, when the court ruled that corporate money is speech and thus corporations can spend unlimited amounts on elections.

“The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law,” the majority wrote. “There can be no serious doubt that it does.”

No arguments were heard; it was a summary reversal.


Oh, ok. That case was a logical extension of Citizen's United and a very easy decision for the Court. States can no more violate the bill of rights than the federal government can. If a state passes a law that violates these rights, then it should be struck down. I don't see where the hypocrisy comes into play. Republicans haven't adopted a per se "the feds should never interfere with the affairs of the states" position.


Yeah, the Citizen's United case basically established that corporate political donations are a form of protected speech. As such, it would be inappropriate to block corporations from giving money in local elections just as it would be in a federal election.

I don't understand at all why CC is arguing that makes Roberts a "hypocrit".
I like the way the walls go out. Gives you an open feeling. Firefly's a good design. People don't appreciate the substance of things. Objects in space. People miss out on what's solid.
biology]major
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States2253 Posts
June 28 2012 19:27 GMT
#1306
On June 29 2012 04:24 Irre wrote:
anyone catch Romney's response to the Healthcare decision? It was a disgusting display of lies and distortion of the Healthcare BIll. What makes it worse is it was a model of HIS healthcare plan, and REPUBLICANS Plan back in the 90s...really shows how far our politics have degraded that someone as poisonous as Mitt Romney could get to the top a major party ticket to lead the country.


None of it makes any sense, the health care mandate was an idea introduced by republicans..
Power of propaganda >> general public though
Question.?
{CC}StealthBlue
Profile Blog Joined January 2003
United States41117 Posts
June 28 2012 19:33 GMT
#1307
Long.

+ Show Spoiler +
Okay, explained like you're a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased:

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 PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.

Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, 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, [1] PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( [2] Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )

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. ( [3] Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )

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. ( [4] Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )

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 health 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. ( [5] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )

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. ( [6] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )

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. (I think this is it: [7] http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).

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%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners.

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.

Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( [8] Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )

Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid 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 and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable 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. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in [9] this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.

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 PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. 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 is 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.

Whew! Hope that answers the question!


http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/vqory/supreme_court_upholds_affordable_health_care_act/
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules."
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
June 28 2012 19:33 GMT
#1308
On June 29 2012 04:20 Kaitlin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2012 04:10 biology]major wrote:
On June 29 2012 04:08 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 29 2012 04:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances.


Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country.


That's a gross exaggeration.

Many wealthy Republicans vote for lower taxes for their own personal benefits.

Many wealthy Democrats vote for higher taxes for the good of the country.

Surely you can put together a better argument than "all Democrats are free-riders."


Nah, Democrats vote for higher taxes to force others to pay more. Nothing is stopping wealthy Democrats from paying additional amounts of money. However, they don't. In fact, Republicans, at least by example of public tax returns of politicians, are much more charitable than Democrats. Joe Biden and Al Gore gave barely anything to charity, while George Bush and Mitt Romney have given substantially. Voting for tax increases is nothing more than voting to force OTHERS to pay more. Conservatives have shown to be very willing to pay more themselves, since they give to church, charities, etc, but they realize it's bad for the country to impose higher taxes.


you are highly misinformed, too much fox news maybe?


edit:

To contrast, the Conservative mantra can pretty much be summed up as: "Government, leave me the fuck alone."


More the libertarian mantra, no?

Conservatives want government to outlaw many social issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and generally want government to spend freely on things they like (defense, police) and have a long history of spending on things they often oppose (Medicare Part D) and in ways they oppose (deficit spending).

Stick to arguing issues. Saying "liberals = bad, conservatives = good" just hurts your credibility.
ixi.genocide
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States981 Posts
June 28 2012 19:35 GMT
#1309

Well, let's see. I see Liberals bitching about having to pay so much for college and their student loans not being forgiven. What is this ? Oh, they want something and they want someone else to pay for it. They will certainly vote Democrat because Republicans are cold-hearted and don't think they should go to college.

I see Liberals protesting various Union issues across the country. They want higher wages, more benefits, less hours, whatever. They want something and they want someone else to pay for it. They will also vote Democrat because Republicans are evil, Scott Walker supporters, and hate the 'American Worker'.

I see Liberals groups of all kinds wanting something from the government. They want something and they want someone else to pay for it. They all vote Democrat because Republican are the 'Party of No'.

These are the groups I see and the politicians who stand in support of their wants, are the Democrats. These people vote for Democrats, and in turn, Democrats give them things and raise taxes to pay for it. Who pays these taxes ? A minority of the population.

A majority forcing the minority to pay for a bunch of things for the majority is not a wise country. It's certainly not the basis upon which this country was founded. Does the word 'Limited' mean anything anymore ?

edit:

To contrast, the Conservative mantra can pretty much be summed up as: "Government, leave me the fuck alone."


The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions.

Unions represent less than 9% of the private sector today and cost a rediculous amount of money, I think that they are largely unneeded with the labor laws that we have today. It's funny that such a small group of people represent the American Worker.

ShatterZer0
Profile Joined November 2010
United States1843 Posts
June 28 2012 19:38 GMT
#1310
Can I say "FUCK YEAH"? Or would that be inappropriate in this context?
A time to live.
jdseemoreglass
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States3773 Posts
June 28 2012 19:38 GMT
#1311
Damn, this ruling really sucks for all those middle class people who don't qualify for medicaid and yet will be forced to subsidize the ridiculous costs of care in this country. Lucky for me I am too poor for the mandate to affect me. The government every day comes up with more incentives to stay poor and more punishments for making money, so I don't even want to try to get rich anymore. I'm perfectly comfortable right now living under this government defined "poverty." I'm fed and healthy, all my bills are taken care of... if I ever need any real assistance I can get free food or unemployment or whatever. Poverty is the new land of opportunity in America.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Do yourselves a favor and drop down a class.
"If you want this forum to be full of half-baked philosophy discussions between pompous faggots like yourself forever, stay the course captain vanilla" - FakeSteve[TPR], 2006
Irre
Profile Joined August 2010
United States646 Posts
June 28 2012 19:41 GMT
#1312
On June 29 2012 04:38 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Damn, this ruling really sucks for all those middle class people who don't qualify for medicaid and yet will be forced to subsidize the ridiculous costs of care in this country. Lucky for me I am too poor for the mandate to affect me. The government every day comes up with more incentives to stay poor and more punishments for making money, so I don't even want to try to get rich anymore. I'm perfectly comfortable right now living under this government defined "poverty." I'm fed and healthy, all my bills are taken care of... if I ever need any real assistance I can get free food or unemployment or whatever. Poverty is the new land of opportunity in America.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Do yourselves a favor and drop down a class.



nice try, but no one buys that line of bullshit sorry.
TALegion
Profile Joined October 2010
United States1187 Posts
June 28 2012 19:41 GMT
#1313
As soon as a post uses the phrase, "Republicans," or, "Democrats," etc, without an adjective of quantity (i.e. "Most," "Some," "A lot of") before it, it loses all credibility.
No, not all Republicans are selfish, white, rich, xenophobic, homophobic, militaristic Evangelicals. Likewise, not all Democrats are poor, lazy, pot smoking, hypocritical, pussified-Hippy socialists of foreign descent.
Please, whether you are from here or not, or even if you're a government representative, don't think you're good enough to speak on behalf of millions of people.

We all have the same damn goals: Make the country better (Though some like to prefer thinking of making the whole world better). Some people like equality, some people like freedom. It basically comes down to that. You cannot have both, as they both are complete opposites in practice.
Equality can only be achieved through enforced rules and regulations, because (I believe we can all agree...) we are not a perfect, tolerant, generous, peaceful species. Freedom is the lack of this political denial of a person's right to a private livelihood.
I think it's kinda sad that, even though we have a common goal, we're so divided based on our means of accomplishing what we want.
A person willing to die for a cause is a hero. A person willing to kill for a cause is a madman
ampson
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States2355 Posts
June 28 2012 19:43 GMT
#1314
We were paying for their uncompensated care in the hospital, now we are paying for them in taxes. Not much really changes if you already are insured, except a lot more people get (slightly cheaper) health insurance, and medicaid gets bigger. So yes, the freeloaders are going to continue freeloading, but they were doing it already and now at least there is a small improvement in healthcare costs for a lot of people. Only time will tell whether it is worth our tax dollars.
Defacer
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
Canada5052 Posts
June 28 2012 19:43 GMT
#1315
Oh man, this video is just too funny.

MstrJinbo
Profile Joined March 2011
United States1251 Posts
June 28 2012 19:43 GMT
#1316
On June 29 2012 04:27 biology]major wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2012 04:24 Irre wrote:
anyone catch Romney's response to the Healthcare decision? It was a disgusting display of lies and distortion of the Healthcare BIll. What makes it worse is it was a model of HIS healthcare plan, and REPUBLICANS Plan back in the 90s...really shows how far our politics have degraded that someone as poisonous as Mitt Romney could get to the top a major party ticket to lead the country.


None of it makes any sense, the health care mandate was an idea introduced by republicans..
Power of propaganda >> general public though


It's almost like there is little actual difference between the two parties. Interesting
TOloseGT
Profile Blog Joined April 2007
United States1145 Posts
June 28 2012 19:46 GMT
#1317
What we want are different though, I thought that was obvious. What's "better" for one person isn't "better" for the next. That's why it's so complicated talking about politics.

We got conservatives in here telling us they want less government, when clearly the overwhelming evidence points to the contrary. I mean, maybe their understanding of "less" is different?
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
June 28 2012 19:47 GMT
#1318
On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances.


Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country.

Please provide evidence that democratic voters are the drain on the system compared to conservative voters. Even with that evidence you would be wrong. I know plenty of people who are during their lifetimes provide more money to the system than take from it and yet vote for "socialist" policies. For example I would vote for tax increase to cover some more social programs even though I would not be recipient of them.
ixi.genocide
Profile Blog Joined June 2010
United States981 Posts
June 28 2012 19:48 GMT
#1319
On June 29 2012 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2012 04:20 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 29 2012 04:10 biology]major wrote:
On June 29 2012 04:08 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 29 2012 04:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
Secondly, I wasn't calling you or any of the people on this forum braindead. I was calling parts of the american electorate braindead, specifically those that reject all government intervention while at the same time profiting from it most of their lives, yet failing to reckognize that fact. These people read 'tax increase' and go beserk, without even realizing what it means for their own personal circumstances.


Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country.


That's a gross exaggeration.

Many wealthy Republicans vote for lower taxes for their own personal benefits.

Many wealthy Democrats vote for higher taxes for the good of the country.

Surely you can put together a better argument than "all Democrats are free-riders."


Nah, Democrats vote for higher taxes to force others to pay more. Nothing is stopping wealthy Democrats from paying additional amounts of money. However, they don't. In fact, Republicans, at least by example of public tax returns of politicians, are much more charitable than Democrats. Joe Biden and Al Gore gave barely anything to charity, while George Bush and Mitt Romney have given substantially. Voting for tax increases is nothing more than voting to force OTHERS to pay more. Conservatives have shown to be very willing to pay more themselves, since they give to church, charities, etc, but they realize it's bad for the country to impose higher taxes.


you are highly misinformed, too much fox news maybe?


edit:

To contrast, the Conservative mantra can pretty much be summed up as: "Government, leave me the fuck alone."


More the libertarian mantra, no?

Conservatives want government to outlaw many social issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and generally want government to spend freely on things they like (defense, police) and have a long history of spending on things they often oppose (Medicare Part D) and in ways they oppose (deficit spending).

Stick to arguing issues. Saying "liberals = bad, conservatives = good" just hurts your credibility.

No, That is Republicans. Conservatives is not based off of religious aspects and typically doesn't have a social point to it. Conservatives look for decreased taxes and want a more competitive country for companies, this increases jobs in US.

Republican is an overarching umbrella of religous views and conservative ideas, Libertarians specifically want the federal government to stay out of the economy and let the state governments decide on social issues etc.
Deathmanbob
Profile Joined December 2010
United States2356 Posts
June 28 2012 19:48 GMT
#1320
On June 29 2012 04:18 TheToast wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 29 2012 04:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
On June 29 2012 04:09 TheToast wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I have a really honest but curious question to ask to Republican TL'ers here: You are pissed at Roberts today but not yesterday on his stance on Citnzens United which is the poster boy of big government telling a State what it can and cannot do. Hypocrisy no?


I'm not so much pissed at Roberts, but I do disagree with him. I thought the ruling was a bit bizzare, it was obviously a question of how to interpret the commerce clause. To side step that by declairing the individual mandate a tax is ignoring the entire issue.

And wasn't Citizens United about limiting political contributions to candidates from non-profit organizations and corporations? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

On June 29 2012 03:54 Doublemint wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:47 TheToast wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:39 farvacola wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:30 MaYuu wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:21 TheToast wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:19 MaYuu wrote:
It's so hard to be happy for the people in the US that now can get healthcare when you read reactions. You are so proud of your country and yet still doesn't care if your people are sick and dying because of no universal health care.

Grow up. It's fucking 21th centuray.


So because it's the 21st century I have to allow my government to tell me I have to buy a product? That makes no sense.

Americans know our healthcare system is broken, we know costs are out of control. I personally just don't think having the federal government make healthcare insurance manditory is the proper solution. You can affect costs without infringing on personal liberty.


To me it's kind of absurd to see it as a product, it's more like a service everyone should be eligable to. Even if you don't wanna pay for it right now, there will be some time when you'll be happy you did, and you'll be greatfull that everyone paid all this time so you and everyone else could get good care. Don't you agree that health care should be about helping people first hand, and getting a profit second hand?


But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion.

Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.

While it doesn't preclude profit-making per se, the act itself......

Prevents insurance companies from denying customers for pre-existing conditions.

Allows young adults to stay on their parent's insurance until age 26.

Limits age-rating, or charging premiums several times higher for older customers.

Eliminates lifetime insurance caps and restricts annual limits.

Restricts how much insurance companies can spend on non-medical costs (overhead).

Mandates that everyone acquire health insurance by 2014 or face a tax, offering subsidies or Medicaid for those who can't afford it.

In other words, any wiggle room insurance companies previously had in terms of squeezing out dollar signs has been reduced significantly.


Which will just raise insurance premiums for everyone across the board and insurance companies will keep making money.

On June 29 2012 03:37 Derez wrote:
On June 29 2012 03:35 TheToast wrote:
But the law doesn't preclude insurance companies from making a profit. It doesn't stop big healthcare companies from making a profit. All that changed is that the Federal government is now mandating that I carry insurance or I will be fined. This isn't a nationalization, it's coersion.

Whether it's a product or service, I'm still being forced into buying it. Whether I will or will not be greatful in the future is irrelevant to my ability to make a decision in the present. This is a clear violation of my freedom to choose.


I don't get this objection. Aren't you also forced to pay for streetlights? Highways? Social security? Aren't those taxes also a clear violation of your freedom to choose? It seems to me like a convenient excuse to object to programs you personally don't want to see implemented.


There's a clear difference between saying one needs to pay a small percentage of their income to the state to run basic government services and mandating that one has to buy a specific product.

The other issue is I still don't think it's constitutional. Bypassing the commerce clause by calling the individual mandate a "tax" is bizzare if not outright stupid.


What needs to happen to convince you then? Isn't the Supreme Court the "supreme" Court in your country which is based ( one might say very intelligently so) on checks and balances?

Man up and don't be a sore loser...

Personal responsibility all the way, even if one is on the losing side of a legal argument - no?


So, because the Supreme Court decided one way I can't disagree with it? I would point out there were four justices in disagreement with the majority ruling. So their opinion just doesn't count? If four highly intelligent, highly educated legal minds are arguing against the ruling, there is at obviously a legitimate argument to be made against the law. I would say you're being a sore winner with the attitude that all dissenting opinions are now invalid. That's rediculous.

The law may have been ruled constitutional by a plurality of justices, but I reserve my right to agree with Justice Kennedy and the other opposing Justices. If you don't like it, well that's too bad.



But the SCOTUS ruling struck down a STATE law.


So? That happens all the time.

Why does that make him a hypocrit?


because people use the argument that the government should not be able to do this and it is a state issue (healthcarewise) this is the main argument romney uses when he defends his state law that AFA is based off of. If you are going to use the argument that this should be left up to the states you are hypercritical when you say that CU was fine to strike down the state law.

now i am not saying that anyone here has used that argument mainly because i am not going to dig around post, but there are a lot of people who have used this argument
No Artosis, you are robin
Prev 1 64 65 66 67 68 102 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
WardiTV Summer Champion…
11:00
Group Stage 1 - Group B
WardiTV1259
TKL 207
IndyStarCraft 203
Rex130
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Hui .329
TKL 207
IndyStarCraft 203
Harstem 183
Rex 130
mcanning 94
ProTech82
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 41988
Rain 12248
Bisu 2058
Jaedong 1434
Shuttle 1206
EffOrt 1167
Larva 755
Mini 744
BeSt 680
firebathero 620
[ Show more ]
ZerO 364
Snow 287
ggaemo 252
Soma 163
Hyun 136
Rush 111
Sharp 76
Soulkey 51
sorry 46
ToSsGirL 44
yabsab 39
TY 35
Aegong 35
Sexy 32
sas.Sziky 31
Backho 28
sSak 23
soO 21
Terrorterran 21
ajuk12(nOOB) 18
JulyZerg 17
scan(afreeca) 16
HiyA 14
zelot 11
IntoTheRainbow 11
Shine 10
Rock 10
SilentControl 6
Hm[arnc] 3
Zeus 0
Stormgate
Codebar58
Dota 2
Gorgc7855
qojqva3525
Dendi1045
XcaliburYe275
League of Legends
febbydoto3
Counter-Strike
ScreaM2873
flusha606
kRYSTAL_68
Other Games
FrodaN2342
singsing2335
B2W.Neo1389
hiko1034
crisheroes394
Beastyqt393
DeMusliM310
Fuzer 244
KnowMe223
XaKoH 214
RotterdaM195
ViBE96
Mew2King66
ArmadaUGS63
SortOf36
Trikslyr19
ZerO(Twitch)15
StateSC28
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 20 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• StrangeGG 71
• davetesta13
• 3DClanTV 4
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• Migwel
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• Azhi_Dahaki14
• Michael_bg 5
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 2902
• WagamamaTV419
League of Legends
• Nemesis3066
• Jankos1131
Other Games
• Shiphtur41
Upcoming Events
OSC
8h 56m
The PondCast
18h 56m
WardiTV Summer Champion…
19h 56m
Replay Cast
1d 8h
LiuLi Cup
1d 19h
Online Event
2 days
SC Evo League
2 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3 days
CSO Contender
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
[ Show More ]
WardiTV Summer Champion…
3 days
SC Evo League
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
Afreeca Starleague
4 days
Sharp vs Ample
Larva vs Stork
Wardi Open
4 days
RotterdaM Event
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Afreeca Starleague
5 days
JyJ vs TY
Bisu vs Speed
WardiTV Summer Champion…
5 days
Afreeca Starleague
6 days
Mini vs TBD
Soma vs sSak
WardiTV Summer Champion…
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

StarCon 2025 Philadelphia
FEL Cracow 2025
CC Div. A S7

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Qualifiers
WardiTV Summer 2025
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025

Upcoming

CSL Season 18: Qualifier 1
ASL Season 20
CSLAN 3
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
LASL Season 20
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
Roobet Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.