Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare.

#181
#181
TNGlen said:
Each state has a constitution. As long as this activity was allowed by the MA constitution, then the STATE has a right to do what they want. The U.S. is SUPPOSED to be a Republic of individual States. We are seeing more and more everyday that the SCOTUS is finding ways of getting rid of the State constitutions and putting us all under one big umbrella. What Romney did was allowed in his state. What Nobama did, should not have been allowed in the COUNTRY. If each state wants to put in a universal health care system at the state level, then go for it. Many State Constitutions won't allow it. Why do you think the big boys in MA like the Kennedy's and Kerry's take their multi-million dollar assets like yachts to other states and register them.....they don't want to pay MA taxes on them.
Click to expand...

Clearly, according to the SCOTUS the US Constitution has this power. What you say 'should not' be allowed obviously conflicts with the findings of the majority on the Court. And since the darling of the conservatives on the Court led on this, there appears to be nowhere to go. Roberts is Chief Justice and will be here for some time. Romney has stated Roberts is his model - which shows the quality of judge he looks for. Romney's own history of judicial appointments in MA means this is what we have to look forward to.

What Romney did in MA is counter to his own assertion he is for private involvement. What Romney did in MA was not required. He did not have to do this. The opportunist did this to get a feather in his cap for his longtime ambitions for higher office. All of his moves are calculated for advancement. So if your gripe and issue is with what the US and its Constitution SHOULD be, then you better be mindful of Romney and what he HAS DONE. If he is conservative he had no reason to enact Romneycare whether it was allowed under MA law or not. And the fact he repeatedly stated Obama should use it as a federal model counters the assertion his argument was only for state healthcare. If you trust Romney is anything different and something to counter the ideology you despise you are fooling yourself. A conservative would never pass anything like what he did on any level of government, constitutional or not.
 
#186
#186
bamawriter said:
Boehner and Romney have both said "repeal and replace." Neither has suggested the status quo. And honestly, it would be major political mistake to try and propose a new plan during the 4 months from now to November. The message has to be that this plan is wrong for the American people as a whole, and it needs to go down. Worry about the replacement later.
Click to expand...

Romney's stated some of it is fine and should remain. Boehner has stated ALL of the law should be repealed. And if that 'replacement later' message is it, it will fail. Those now under the coverage (26 and under and preexisting) get pulled coverage and it becomes a political liability.
 
#188
#188
bamawriter said:
Boehner and Romney have both said "repeal and replace." Neither has suggested the status quo. And honestly, it would be major political mistake to try and propose a new plan during the 4 months from now to November. The message has to be that this plan is wrong for the American people as a whole, and it needs to go down. Worry about the replacement later.
Click to expand...


How is Romney going to be in favor of repealing and replacing the main component of his own health care plan?

Does not compute.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#189
#189
theutvolunteers said:
Easier said than done. A few people I graduated with have had a very difficult time with employment.
Click to expand...

no, they have a hard time finding employment equal to what they think they're worth. If I was fired right now I could find a job on my way home that would cover my bills.

milohimself said:
Because the dissent ostensibly ruled considering the commerce clause.

I meant there was little dispute that congress has power to levy almost any sort of tax they choose
Click to expand...

still not true

BeecherVol said:
If your 26 and still at home is that a preexisting condition?:)
Click to expand...

if I had been mooching off my parents at 26 my condition would have been covered by the ADA
 
#190
#190
volinbham said:
For me the problem is that this bill conflates health insurance with healthcare. You don't have to have health insurance to pay for healthcare although that is the primary payment vehicle.

The commerce is healthcare not health insurance.
Click to expand...

OK. Do you think more people will be paying for the US's total healthcare with ACA? Or do you think that the same group that is currently paying for everyone's healthcare will just continue to do so.

I understand healthcare /= health insurance.
 
#191
#191
Danl said:
OK. Do you think more people will be paying for the US's total healthcare with ACA? Or do you think that the same group that is currently paying for everyone's healthcare will just continue to do so.

I understand healthcare /= health insurance.
Click to expand...

not enough will be added to make a real dent
 
#192
#192
vols4sure said:
And I say it is another ridiculous expansion of government power. I don't give a crap whether Roberts was appointed by the founding fathers themselves.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm no fan of the law as it forces everybody into a corrupt private market, although I'm not sure the private insurance market could ever be un****ed withouta law similar to the aca.

Either way, the highest court says it's okay then it's okay
 
#196
#196
volfanngaytorland said:
Ask Canada how their public healthcare is working out.
Click to expand...

Health care in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A 2009 Harris/Decima poll found 82% of Canadians preferred their healthcare system to the one in the United States, more than ten times as many as the 8% stating a preference for a US-style health care system for Canada[9] while a Strategic Counsel survey in 2008 found 91% of Canadians preferring their healthcare system to that of the U.S
Click to expand...
 
#197
#197
BeecherVol said:
If your 26 and still at home is that a preexisting condition?:)
Click to expand...

That's true in most cases. I know a lot of those people, but this includes everyone under 26. I have several married friends with pretty good jobs that are still on their parents insurance. They also get a check for the amount their company would have spent on them. My wife is on her parents for another year so we'll take advantage of it.
 
#198
#198
It's funny how people want the right to choose. Health insurance in this example. but if gay people choose to get married it's an abomination!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#200
#200
Me too. I dont like being forced to do something. I see their point in doing it. (if everyone has insurance it'll drive costs down(or something like that)). but the mandate... ehhhh not so sure.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top