Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare.

#302
#302
BigPapaVol said:
Do they not yet realize that the incumbent doesn't get to run a second time in pure conjecture?
Click to expand...

This incumbent can because the media isn't going to report on the substance of his first term. It'll be like that last four years never happened, and "hope and change" will simply change names to "forward."
 
#304
#304
BigPapaVol said:
So you've chosen the centrist approach?
Click to expand...


The far left has its share of nuts and koolaid drinkers, too. Its just that, by definition, they tend to be either dirt poor or movie stars. The only ones who can do anything are the movie stars and they sound retarded when they speak and so we all roll our eyes at them.

Its the Jan Brewers, the Koch brothers,and the Breitbarts that worry me much more since they either have money plus the smarts to funnel it to the cause that is going to get them more money, or know how to play on people's worst fears.
 
#306
#306
lawgator1 said:
The far left has its share of nuts and koolaid drinkers, too. Its just that, by definition, they tend to be either dirt poor or movie stars. The only ones who can do anything are the movie stars and they sound retarded when they speak and so we all roll our eyes at them.

Its the Jan Brewers, the Koch brothers,and the Breitbarts that worry me much more since they either have money plus the smarts to funnel it to the cause that is going to get them more money, or know how to play on people's worst fears.
Click to expand...

dirt poor or movie stars? The universities in the country are full of the idiotic moon bats who provide almost nothing to our country.

Your level of concern with guys like the Koch brothers, who actually pay taxes, instead of idiotic professors posing under the guise of expertise / authority is silly.
 
#307
#307
BigPapaVol said:
rather than refute it, the argument from the administration was that it expect HC costs to go down. Good grief.

Do they not yet realize that the incumbent doesn't get to run a second time in pure conjecture?
Click to expand...


The GOP's outrage over the tax increase is laughable since the tax is on the people who the GOP complain bitterly have been avoiding paying anything into it.

A tax on freeloaders is the greatest thing since sliced bread if its in the Ryan budget, or Romney's Massachusetts plan.

If it is enacted by Obama, its the anti-Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#308
#308
BigPapaVol said:
dirt poor or movie stars? The universities in the country are full of the idiotic moon bats who provide almost nothing to our country.

Your level of concern with guys like the Koch brothers, who actually pay taxes, instead of idiotic professors posing under the guise of expertise / authority is silly.
Click to expand...


Well, that's true, but the university professors don;'t really have a lot of super Pacs, I don't think.
 
#309
#309
lawgator1 said:
The GOP's outrage over the tax increase is laughable since the tax is on the people who the GOP complain bitterly have been avoiding paying anything into it.

A tax on freeloaders is the greatest thing since sliced bread if its in the Ryan budget, or Romney's Massachusetts plan.

If it is enacted by Obama, its the anti-Christ.
Click to expand...

First comment is ridiculous, given the enormous amount of effort spent trying to call this anything but another tax.

There is no such thing as tax on freeloaders and calling someone a freeloader on the HC system is retarded. People being pragmatic about it doesn't mean they won't pay their own way when the time comes. Those who would take services for free will continue to do so. Unfortunately, that number is now going to rise in a very large way.

Federal HC is a disaster, regardless of proponent. Bush gave us more senior medical spending and he's an idiot for having done so to buy votes. Don't give me the partisan horsecrap and then pretend to be centrist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#311
#311
BigPapaVol said:
First comment is ridiculous, given the enormous amount of effort spent trying to call this anything but another tax.

There is no such thing as tax on freeloaders and calling someone a freeloader on the HC system is retarded. People being pragmatic about it doesn't mean they won't pay their own way when the time comes. Those who would take services for free will continue to do so. Unfortunately, that number is now going to rise in a very large way.

Federal HC is a disaster, regardless of proponent. Bush gave us more senior medical spending and he's an idiot for having done so to buy votes. Don't give me the partisan horsecrap and then pretend to be centrist.
Click to expand...


Your factual statements are just plain 100 % wrong.

There are millions of people every year who get free health care. They do not have insurance. They do not have Medicare or Medicaid. The cost of their care is shifted to those of us who DO pay for health insurance.

What this program does is ensure that everyone either has insurance or at least pays something into the system to help pay for their own health care.

You can call it a tax or a penalty or whatever. The point is, it does EXACTLY what the Republicans have been screaming about for years.

Heck, that's why Romney proposed it as governor and told Obama that he ought to adopt it nationally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#312
#312
lawgator1 said:
Your factual statements are just plain 100 % wrong.

There are millions of people every year who get free health care. They do not have insurance. They do not have Medicare or Medicaid. The cost of their care is shifted to those of us who DO pay for health insurance.

What this program does is ensure that everyone either has insurance or at least pays something into the system to help pay for their own health care.

You can call it a tax or a penalty or whatever. The point is, it does EXACTLY what the Republicans have been screaming about for years.

Heck, that's why Romney proposed it as governor and told Obama that he ought to adopt it nationally.
Click to expand...
Those taking it free will continue to do so. We haven't addressed that problem one bit today. We simply added more bureaucracy, thus increasing the cost of the problem. How can you not get your head around this?

You can't seem to articulate why it's going to address the problem. Wonder why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#313
#313
BigPapaVol said:
Those taking it free will continue to do so. We haven't addressed that problem one bit today. We simply added more bureaucracy, thus increasing the cost of the problem. How can you not get your head around this?

You can't seem to articulate why it's going to address the problem. Wonder why?
Click to expand...


Notice you have stopped arguing my point that more people will now be paying in who under the old system would use the system but not contribute.

As I say, that is why Romney supports the individual mandate.

As to your newest argument, the CBO and our legislators have concluded that the cost of administration is far outweighed by the a) increased revenue coming in from the prior freeloaders and b) the cost savings occasioned by broader coverage resulting in greater efficiency in delivery of health care services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#314
#314
lawgator1 said:
Notice you have stopped arguing my point that more people will now be paying in who under the old system would use the system but not contribute.

As I say, that is why Romney supports the individual mandate.

As to your newest argument, the CBO and our legislators have concluded that the cost of administration is far outweighed by the a) increased revenue coming in from the prior freeloaders and b) the cost savings occasioned by broader coverage resulting in greater efficiency in delivery of health care services.
Click to expand...

Point is simply not true and even if there's some tradeoff, it will never come close to paying for the enormous pile of bureaucracy about to be heaped on it. Additionally, the cash flow gap between new expense and recouping funds will be years, so we're going to get to deal with that sweetness as well.

The individual mandate makes sense in this context, but it's freaking not how the US rolls.

The CBO and our legislators are political and stop being a buffoon about that. There is no possible way that this is anything but a net new enormous expense. Pretending otherwise is how we get the social burden to the point of obliterating our economy. Maybe you haven't noticed our history with these programs, but it's abysmal and this one will be worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#315
#315
BigPapaVol said:
Point is simply not true and even if there's some tradeoff, it will never come close to paying for the enormous pile of bureaucracy about to be heaped on it. Additionally, the cash flow gap between new expense and recouping funds will be years, so we're going to get to deal with that sweetness as well.

The individual mandate makes sense in this context, but it's freaking not how the US rolls.

The CBO and our legislators are political and stop being a buffoon about that. There is no possible way that this is anything but a net new enormous expense. Pretending otherwise is how we get the social burden to the point of obliterating our economy. Maybe you haven't noticed our history with these programs, but it's abysmal and this one will be worse.
Click to expand...


If you turn out to be right, and the increased revenue and costs savings are not a major improvement, then I will support repeal.

As of right now, the evidence I have to go on is what the CBO and the independent (key word) sources say about it. And they say it will result in a better system, providing more care to more people, for less money.

As for the long term, I admit my bias in that I believe we have no choice in the matter and that, eventually, programs like Medicare are going to widen their criteria to the point that we have a single payor system.

I'm undecided on whether Obama care delays that with a temporary fix that relieves some of the pressure from escalating costs, or takes us one step closer to a government mechanism. Probably a bit of both.
 
#318
#318
The hypocrisy in Washington and in politics as a whole is amazing.

The GOP and conservative groups are in an outrage now over the heathcare mandate.
There is plenty of talk of how Roberts betrayed them.

During the 2008 POTUS campaign Obama was against a healthcare mandate, now he is for it.

Conservative believe that each individual is responsibe to take care of themselves. They were in favor of healtcare mandates in the late 1980's and the 1990's.


The conservative Heritage Group called for a mandate in 1989.

In November, 1993, Sen. John Chafee, R-R.I., introduced what was considered to be one of the main Republican health overhaul proposals: "A bill to provide comprehensive reform of the health care system of the United States."

The bill did call for a mandate and had 20 cosponsors.


In 2006, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who was then governor of Massachusetts, signed off on a law requiring individuals of the state to purchase health insurance. American Bridge 21st Century, a Democratic opposition research group, on Wednesday released a 2006 video in which Romney says he is “very pleased” with the mandate.

“With regards to the individual mandate, the individual responsibility program that I proposed, I was very pleased that the compromise between the two houses includes the personal responsibility mandate. That is essential for bringing the health care costs down for everyone and getting everyone the health insurance they need," Romney says in the video.


The parties have flip flopped on this issue.
 
#319
#319
lawgator1 said:
If you turn out to be right, and the increased revenue and costs savings are not a major improvement, then I will support repeal.
Click to expand...

The wait and hope approach sounds great. After all, it is so easy to repeal something that gives benefits to a group of people but ends up costing too much.

How the hell you can just accept the argument that costs will be reduced or healthcare will be more efficient due to expanding government programs when past history is 100% against you baffles the hell out of me. You must be just trolling.
 
#320
#320
it won't matter what anyone wants once it's fully implemented and running. Has govt ever shown the ability to say "my bad" and roll back such an expansive program? No, they will throw money at it until the ink runs out and there's nothing left to print. Once that happens our dollar will truly become legal tinder
 
#321
#321
7464359412_6c79583df6_b.jpg


Legally, Kangan should have recused herself.

Now that Roberts has dodged the arguments presented in court and ruled the act to be constitutional because congress has the power to tax (which means Obama lied to us), Obamacare is still unconstitutional because if it is a tax then the constitution specifically says that all tax bills must originate in the House and the Afordable Health Care Act DID NOT!
 
#322
#322
vols4sure said:
The wait and hope approach sounds great. After all, it is so easy to repeal something that gives benefits to a group of people but ends up costing too much.

How the hell you can just accept the argument that costs will be reduced or healthcare will be more efficient due to expanding government programs when past history is 100% against you baffles the hell out of me. You must be just trolling.
Click to expand...


As I say, it is clear that some major reforms were required. As a small business person who offers his employee health insurance, I can attest to that, myself.

The independent sources say this will work.

If it doesn't, we try again. Not taking action because we can't predict the future with certainty is just dumb.

Yesterday, Romney stood in front of a podium that said "Repeal and Replace" and said on his first day he would repeal the law.

I repeat -- and replace it with what, exactly?

The only thing the guy has ever been on record for on this issue is an individual mandate. and he told Obama in 2009 that Obama ought to adopt it nationally.

I just don't see how he can ever get away from that.
 
#323
#323
lawgator1 said:
I just don't see how he can ever get away from that.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to. He's running against Obamacare, not Romneycare. Yes, they are essentially the same, but no one outside of MA ever had to deal with Romneycare, and Romney wasn't going to win MA anyway.

You're trying to frame the scenario as if the decision for opponents of Obamacare is whether or not they believe Romney when he says he wants to repeal the ACA. But that's not the decision. Whether they believe him or not, he's the only hope of repeal on the ballot. So if you want repeal, you vote Romney. You don't vote Obama, or stay home, because you're not 100% convinced that Romney will hold to his promise.
 
#324
#324
If by "essentially" you mean "exactly," ok.

Let him keep trying to parse the words.

He told Obama to adopt a national mandate. Any other version is a bald faced lie.
 
#325
#325
lawgator1 said:
If by "essentially" you mean "exactly," ok.

Let him keep trying to parse the words.

He told Obama to adopt a national mandate. Any other version is a bald faced lie.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure Obama's campaign will trot that out at every opportunity, as they should.

You still don't seem to understand that the decision for opponents of Obamacare isn't whether or not they believe Romney when he says he'll get it repealed. Romneycare will not be a factor for those who don't like Obamacare, because there is no other choice than Romney.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top