Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='KingBroly']Because it is. Even before today people who knew what it was basically knew that it was basically a middle class tax hike. They're the ones who are "penalized" by the ruling, since they are really the ones ripe for fines here, given all of the exclusions and such. You won't find many poor people paying the fine since they can't afford coverage, and are therefore exempt. You won't find many rich people paying the fine since they can afford coverage already. That just leaves the Government screwing over the middle class.

If it was written as a tax in the first place, and not pushed to the Commerce Clause, it wouldn't have passed.

And I'm sure "tax increases" in the future won't be done this way either, no sir. :roll:[/QUOTE]You do realize that there will assistance from the government to help those in need buy insurance, right? Why don't you wait and see how this works out rather than freaking out and screaming "MIDDLE CLASS TAX HIKE !!!!!1111oneone".

If it turns out the way you "think" it will I'll be there with you complaining about it, but I don't think that's what is going to happen.
 
[quote name='usickenme']did you? Roberts explains his reasoning. Basically he says that congress cannot pass clearly unconstitutional laws by playing with the wording.




Also he made it clear that this was a different kind of "tax". One of the reasons the case was heard at all was Anti-Injunction Act did not apply. This law protects the government from challenges to taxes that have yet to be assessed. So if this was a tax from the get go. They wouldn't have heard the case.

Final point just because one Judge (and only one judge) said it may reasonably be characterized as a tax doesn't meant "TeH Obama Lied to Us". I am quite sure they still see it as it was intended. A penalty to motivate people to buy insurance.[/QUOTE]

How you holding up with the fires? I have family just outside of the springs who are holding their breath figuratively and literally.
 
The distinction between a premium and tax is just a made up distraction.

There are major issues, but this is just stupid hiding under a faux Constitution argument.
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']How you holding up with the fires? I have family just outside of the springs who are holding their breath figuratively and literally.[/QUOTE]

Eh, I'm in Denver so no worries here but terrible all around
 
[quote name='usickenme']did you? Roberts explains his reasoning. Basically he says that congress cannot pass clearly unconstitutional laws by playing with the wording.




Also he made it clear that this was a different kind of "tax". One of the reasons the case was heard at all was Anti-Injunction Act did not apply. This law protects the government from challenges to taxes that have yet to be assessed. So if this was a tax from the get go. They wouldn't have heard the case.

Final point just because one Judge (and only one judge) said it may reasonably be characterized as a tax doesn't meant "TeH Obama Lied to Us". I am quite sure they still see it as it was intended. A penalty to motivate people to buy insurance.[/QUOTE]

Thank you, that's what I was trying to explain to KingBroly:

[quote name='IRHari']And the penalty for not buying insurance was interpreted by the SCOTUS as a tax.

'Cruel and unusual punishment' was the way the 8th Amendment was written, but the SCOTUS has interpreted that as also meaning life without parole for juveniles.

The SCOTUS interprets the law.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='usickenme']Eh, I'm in Denver so no worries here but terrible all around[/QUOTE]

Cool....glad you are safe.

I have family by Woodland Park and much of that has been shut down.

They are all safe though but I feel for them and everyone else affected by the fires. Those homes on edge of the Springs got devastated nothing left but the foundations. Sad stuff.

It's just nice to touch base with a Colorado resident so anyway take care.
 
[quote name='Clak']You do realize that there will assistance from the government to help those in need buy insurance, right? Why don't you wait and see how this works out rather than freaking out and screaming "MIDDLE CLASS TAX HIKE !!!!!1111oneone".

If it turns out the way you "think" it will I'll be there with you complaining about it, but I don't think that's what is going to happen.[/QUOTE]

No you won't. Don't kid yourself and don't insult my intelligence by saying you will.
 
I wanted a single payer option but this has some great provisions. Forcing the companies to take people with pre-existing conditions is a good move. Is there a limitation on raising premiums across the board? From what I read they just can't charge you extra for being sickly.
 
In usual Obama fashion, he just makes shit up as we go along. When SCOTUS originally accepted the case for hearing, Obama, like the privileged brat he is, cried that they had no authority, which was one of the most insane things he has said during his administration. Now, that SCOTUS upheld it, the party line is that the debate is over, because the court said so.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I wanted a single payer option but this has some great provisions. Forcing the companies to take people with pre-existing conditions is a good move. Is there a limitation on raising premiums across the board? From what I read they just can't charge you extra for being sickly.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you on wanting single payer but disagree everywhere else. The insurance companies will find some way to screw you out of coverage or just fight you for what you need. I consider this flushing one's money down the toilet. Especially for the treatment I would want if I got Cancer or something else few insurance companies would cover it. It involves just eating healthy, keeping my levels up and going to the Rainforrests to find something promising.
Also, I listened to a woman talking about the similar Romneycare in Massachusetts on "Your Call" on NPR in San Francisco and she said that after the bill passed they really noticed none of the insurance costs slowing down.
Simply put, this is an Insurance Bailout Bill where I believe nothing will change plus I think it's unconstitutional to expect me to pay for an insurance(for just existing) that should be purely optional unless provided by the government. The very fact the Supreme Court ruled this constitutional makes me think they're completely full of shit. I remember doing a report in class on a famous SCOTUS ruling on students right to freedom of the press in High School and it seemed as if they were talking out of both sides of their mouth or quite simply out of their ass. That was back in the 80's or early 90's even.
 
>Want to make healthcare free
THAT'S STUPID AND IS UNFAIR TO PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO PAY FOR HEALTHCARE
>make everyone pay for healthcare
THAT'S STUPID AND IS UNFAIR TO PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO PAY FOR HEALTHCARE
 
Well there is this calculator thing: http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

Seems kinda broken to be honest. Seems a bit high until you get 50,000 or so. But again, probably broken.

Well boys and girls, this is where it gets interesting: The Dissenting Opinion (until Page 63, where it breaks off and starts attacking Roberts) IS the original majority opinion and if it stood would take down the entire law. Same goes for Ginsburg's concurring being the original dissent until a certain point. It seems like Roberts wanted to make this about him, not the court.


EDIT:
More thinking about the Presidential Race.
#1 - It helps Romney stir up the Republican Base even more, as he was having trouble before doing so. It's the main issue that led to the sweeps in 2010, and it will no doubt have an impact again. It's getting to a tipping point with them, if it didn't reach it already.

#2 - It helps Romney with the elderly who were leaning towards Obama, but now that their healthcare is in danger, he can run on repeal and get a lot of support really quick from them.

Like I said, the last one probably isn't going to happen since the Republicans have no balls, and I'm not saying Romney would repeal Obamacare (I don't think he'd do it if elected, just so you know).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I derive great pleasure in watching the lunatic fringe, which is basically our modern day mainstream conservative, freaking the fuck out over having a bill crafted by the Heritage Foundation, pass. It really shows how loony the right has become. The depth of conservative butthurt has me schadenfreude-gasming all over the place. Enjoy ObamaCare, muthafuckas.:booty:
 
Heritage dropped their support for a mandate well in advance of Obama's 2008 victory.

By the way, if the president must gloat and say that it was Heritage's idea, that suggests Americans trust Heritage as a competent organization. You'll say, "Oh, it was a Heritage idea and we love it." and shit all over the rest of their research. It's disingenuous.

Heritage did support President Clinton on welfare reform and stands by that.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Heritage dropped their support for a mandate well in advance of Obama's 2008 victory.

By the way, if the president must gloat and say that it was Heritage's idea, that suggests Americans trust Heritage as a competent organization. You'll say, "Oh, it was a Heritage idea and we love it." and shit all over the rest of their research. It's disingenuous.

Heritage did support President Clinton on welfare reform and stands by that.[/QUOTE]

The president isn't "all Americans," Heritage didn't just craft the mandate aspect of the bill, Heritage isn't a competent organization, and the left didn't care for the bill, but took what it could get because of Republican obstructionism.

You want to know what's really disingenuous? Acting as if Heritage is a legitimate institution of research.
 
Well it's disingenuous to talk as if any of these thinktanks are really that legit. In truth most of them are likely questionable or on the edge, Liberal and Conservative and just usually provide the talking points for the day that most of the idiots on the radio parrot.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Well it's disingenuous to talk as if any of these thinktanks are really that legit. In truth most of them are likely questionable or on the edge, Liberal and Conservative and just usually provide the talking points for the day that most of the idiots on the radio parrot.[/QUOTE]

I agree, but show me a liberal think tank with the influence of Heritage or a liberal radio host with the influence of Limbaugh. Scale is important.
 
There still will be at least one more round of court cases, when the exchanges and the requirements kick in.

This will have to do with the ACA bill explicitly saying that there is no criminal or civil penalty for not paying the penalty, in a way that has never appeared in the tax code before. That is to say, there is no mandate at all. As soon as a penalty for not paying the penalty is registered, it will go to trial.
 
People like spokker dont even argue the merits of the bill, they were hoping the supreme court would making an ideological ruling and hid behind that,
 
The Supreme Court said nothing about the merits of the bill. They were not deciding whether it was good or bad, moral or immoral, whether or was going to improve health care or not. Chief Justice Roberts explicitly pointed out that it is not their job "to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

That it was upheld makes it an even bigger issue this fall.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I agree, but show me a liberal think tank with the influence of Heritage or a liberal radio host with the influence of Limbaugh. Scale is important.[/QUOTE]

Scale be damned, I'm stuck trying to come up with a liberal think tank at all beyond Brookings.
 
[quote name='dohdough'][...]and the left didn't care for the bill, but took what it could get because of Republican obstructionism.[/QUOTE]

One of my favorite arguments.

When zero Republicans vote for the bill, then 100% of the bill is on the Democrats. The very idea of complaining that the bill had to suck to get support from Republicans is laughable, when in the next breath, you complain about how the Republicans wouldn't support anything the Democrats did.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']No you won't. Don't kid yourself and don't insult my intelligence by saying you will.[/QUOTE]
You'd have to have intelligence before I could insult it, bub.;)
 
[quote name='Chase']I'm in favor of PPACA. However, I do understand the concerns of those who dislike the bill.

I linked a few friends who dislike the bill to a well-written Huffington Post article written by a 16-year-old (in Stockton, of all places) and asked them to argue against his bullet points. They just skipped over my response. Oh well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-wang/the-truths-behind-obamaca_b_1633818.html

This is the article.[/QUOTE]Sanity from a teenager, while grown adults act like children, love it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']One of my favorite arguments.

When zero Republicans vote for the bill, then 100% of the bill is on the Democrats. The very idea of complaining that the bill had to suck to get support from Republicans is laughable, when in the next breath, you complain about how the Republicans wouldn't support anything the Democrats did.[/QUOTE]

Because voting is the only kind of political process.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Because voting is the only kind of political process.[/QUOTE]

No, but if the Democrats were the only ones that planned on voting on it anyway you would assume that they would make the bill that they wanted to pass. Which they made. And they passed.

Day 2 of the healthcare bill still being passed. Life is unchanged, people seem the same. No death camps yet, and old people are still getting their meds. Things look promising.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']you would assume[/QUOTE]

No, I would certainly not.

I would assume that they would make a bill that would overcome a filibuster and a bill that would pass - therefore, a bill that is skewed in favor of garnering "yes" votes from Democrats who come from very conservative districts, Republicans like Olympia Snowe, who have a modicum of principle (for a moment, anyway), Democrats who are rather conservative themselves, or in the case of Ben Nelson, both.

In other words, the bill's more significant modifications were made in the process of acquiring the 59th and 60th votes to overcome a filibuster, and was influenced more by finding that 51st vote to pass the bill than the prior 50 'yes' votes.

If we oversimplify very complex political processes, then it's easy to exalt or vilify our favorite teams. But it is wholly inaccurate.
 
[quote name='mykevermin'][...]a bill that is skewed in favor of garnering "yes" votes from Democrats[...][/quote]

Damn Republicans.

If we oversimplify very complex political processes, then it's easy to exalt or vilify our favorite teams. But it is wholly inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Wholly agreed.

So why am I the only one who calls out folks like DD when he rambles on about the damn Republicans?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So why am I the only one who calls out folks like DD when he rambles on about the damn Republicans?[/QUOTE]

You suck at thinking, you suck at politics, and you suck at making an argument. That's why noone cares what you think about DD.
 
[quote name='camoor']You suck at thinking, you suck at politics, and you suck at making an argument. That's why noone cares what you think about DD.[/QUOTE]

Aside from the fact we've already proven your inability to read and comprehend, let's run with this.

If you don't care what *I* think, do you care at all about what Myke thinks?

[quote name='mykevermin']
If we oversimplify very complex political processes, then it's easy to exalt or vilify our favorite teams. But it is wholly inaccurate.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Aside from the fact we've already proven your inability to read and comprehend, let's run with this.

If you don't care what *I* think, do you care at all about what Myke thinks?[/QUOTE]

Hell fucking yes.

You are the token teapartier, you're basically the pet snake of the VS forum. Didn't you know that?
 
So, it's great to know that we agree about folks who try to make it "Democrats vs. Republicans."

On a wholly different note, I love that, some time ago, the vs. forum elite came out against the term "Obamacare" - saying anyone who used it was a tool and a fool.

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/

Visit Julia at age 27. You'll see that Obama's own campaign staff is using the term "Obamacare".

Pretty awesome.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I agree, but show me a liberal think tank with the influence of Heritage or a liberal radio host with the influence of Limbaugh. Scale is important.[/QUOTE]

Yeah Heritage is said an awful lot. I'll agree with you there.

The closest "Liberal" to Limbaugh with an influence is Ed Schultz who I have little respect for after hearing one of the main reasons for him becoming Liberal, namely being paid to push for the Democrats. I also thought it was disgusting how he'd schill above all for Obama when Obama was already full of shit at one point.
I'm also extremely bitter he took Lynn Samuels weekly time slot on Sirius a couple of months or more before she died. She ended up on the weekend instead with her salary being cut drastically. How that big turd took her place on Sirius is disgusting. Why Ed Schultz couldn't have died instead on Christmas Eve 2011 I don't understand.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
On a wholly different note, I love that, some time ago, the vs. forum elite came out against the term "Obamacare" - saying anyone who used it was a tool and a fool.

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/

Visit Julia at age 27. You'll see that Obama's own campaign staff is using the term "Obamacare".

Pretty awesome.[/QUOTE]

Incapable of knowing a word can have a connotation versus denotation, derogatory pejoratives, and other linguistic baggage. Details at 11.
 
[quote name='Strell']Incapable of knowing a word can have a connotation versus denotation, derogatory pejoratives, and other linguistic baggage. Details at 11.[/QUOTE]

When certain folks kept using "Bush Tax Cuts", the argument was made that the term was okay because those "on the right" used it. No difference was made for how the term was being used.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So, it's great to know that we agree about folks who try to make it "Democrats vs. Republicans."

On a wholly different note, I love that, some time ago, the vs. forum elite came out against the term "Obamacare" - saying anyone who used it was a tool and a fool.

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia/

Visit Julia at age 27. You'll see that Obama's own campaign staff is using the term "Obamacare".

Pretty awesome.[/QUOTE]

Elite is not an insult.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']One of my favorite arguments.

When zero Republicans vote for the bill, then 100% of the bill is on the Democrats. The very idea of complaining that the bill had to suck to get support from Republicans is laughable, when in the next breath, you complain about how the Republicans wouldn't support anything the Democrats did.[/QUOTE]
First off, The Left!=Democrats.

Secondly, Republicans were integral and instrumental in crafting the bill every single step of the way.

[quote name='Sarang01']Yeah Heritage is said an awful lot. I'll agree with you there.

The closest "Liberal" to Limbaugh with an influence is Ed Schultz who I have little respect for after hearing one of the main reasons for him becoming Liberal, namely being paid to push for the Democrats. I also thought it was disgusting how he'd schill above all for Obama when Obama was already full of shit at one point.
I'm also extremely bitter he took Lynn Samuels weekly time slot on Sirius a couple of months or more before she died. She ended up on the weekend instead with her salary being cut drastically. How that big turd took her place on Sirius is disgusting. Why Ed Schultz couldn't have died instead on Christmas Eve 2011 I don't understand.[/QUOTE]
I'm not a huge fan of Schultz, but the only thing he has in common with Limbaugh is vitriol. Cenk Uygur from The Young Turks does a far better job than Schultz and I wouldn't even throw Maddow in as being close on influence alone and certainly not on tone. Frankly, I'm surprised that after all this time, no one ever mentions John Stewart.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']No, but if the Democrats were the only ones that planned on voting on it anyway you would assume that they would make the bill that they wanted to pass. Which they made. And they passed.

Day 2 of the healthcare bill still being passed. Life is unchanged, people seem the same. No death camps yet, and old people are still getting their meds. Things look promising.[/QUOTE]

One right (first bolded text) and one big wrong (second bolded text). Keep trying little buddy.
 
LOLZ...it's hilarious how Pliskin tends to try and alienate everyone in the forum. Especially the ones that he shares similar political leanings with and is totally oblivious to it.
 
[quote name='dohdough']First off, The Left!=Democrats.[/quote]

Yeah, just like The Right ≠ Republicans. Although you wouldn't know that by all the hate that spews from this board towards anyone with the slightest bit of conservative leaning.

Secondly, Republicans were integral and instrumental in crafting the bill every single step of the way.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right. A dog leaves a turd on the sidewalk, you pick it up and eat it, then blame the dog for leaving it there in the first place.

It's a horrible monstrosity of a bill. Voted for - and thus enacted by - the Democrats. I don't care who wrote the thing... Millions of crap bills, ordinances, laws, etc... have been written. I don't care. It's when they pass that we should be concerned.
 
Oh please, it wouldn't matter if the republicans had had no influence on the bill, you'd still hate it. You're a hack and that's all there is to it. You think you're moderate, and that's all in your mind.
 
Please, oh please Mr. Clak - where the hell did I ever say I was a moderate?

And you're correct - the amount of Republican influence on the bill wouldn't change how I feel about the bill. You make it sound like a bad thing that I'm not swayed by party politics. It's a bad bill, no matter who made it, who voted for it and who supported it.
 
Oh yes the liberal mental illness. It is the republicans fault that the democrats had a super majority and ram rodded obamacare. Yet all republicans voted against it. But yet they are sooo to blame. But yet these same people still call it Bush's war when that was truly a bi-partisan act and democrats had the actual control and actual power to stop it but did not and ACTUALLY supported it more than once in more than one way. That isn't what I would call Bush's war. But this could easily be called Obamacare as it was forced by Obama's democrats. Come on liberals you can do it take your blame for the WARS your democrats truly supported and PASSED and quit telling republicans that they should do the same with OBAMACARE when you are being such hypocrites and the two are soooo different.

Oh the liberal illness. :roll:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top