Conquer Club

ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby Woodruff on Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:53 pm

john9blue wrote:
Frigidus wrote:Kind of disappointing. Now the Democrats will just sit on their asses and pretend that the healthcare problem is solved. I know that I'm supposed to point and laugh at the other team when this sort of thing happens, but Obamacare is a compromised handout to the insurance companies. Just because it isn't Republican backed doesn't mean it's good.


thank you dude. sick of the democrats in this thread defending this thing to the death just because "their team won"


I don't see a lot of people defending it, so much as I see people trying to explain it to people who don't want to bother trying to understand it.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:53 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Neoteny wrote:
Frigidus wrote:Kind of disappointing. Now the Democrats will just sit on their asses and pretend that the healthcare problem is solved. I know that I'm supposed to point and laugh at the other team when this sort of thing happens, but Obamacare is a compromised handout to the insurance companies. Just because it isn't Republican backed doesn't mean it's good.


I still fully agree with this.

So do I. It is slightly better than the previous system, but not by much. Despite all of Phatt and Nightstrikes continual claims to the contrary, that is pretty much all I have ever said about this bill/law.


When will you stop supporting crony capitalism?

:roll:
I don't. But I do sometimes accept that compromise is necessary if we want any change at all.


LOL

You have got to own shares in Aetna. Sorry, no one could honestly be this naive.

Try I have pre-existing conditions, as do each of my sons and my husband. What I approve of is that they cannot now be denied coverage. I also have 20+ stepsons who are currently covered just because of the law.

I recognize that this is a boon to the insurance companies, but the Repubs pretty much made anything else impossible. If that makes me "naive", then so be it. I would rather be pragmatic than dogmatic when possible.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby Juan_Bottom on Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:12 pm

In Phatscotty's defense, he said once that he agreed that something had to be done to solve the health care crisis, but that the timing was wrong,... or something like that.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: ObamaCare: Supreme Court Ruling to Come this Week

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:24 pm

Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
kentington wrote:
Neoteny wrote:Today is a victory for America.


Do you really believe this?

This health care law requires people, even unemployed, to have health insurance or get fined and go to jail. If they don't have the money for the insurance, then do they have money to pay a fine?


Incorrect. It only requires those who CAN AFFORD to buy it to do so. Please see my synopsis of the bill earlier in this thread.


What do they mean by "can afford"?


Uh...be able to pay for within their means? I'm honestly confused by your question, because it seems...obvious.


So, if you have $2000 in your bank account and earn about $10,000 per year, can you afford insurance?

The term "can afford" is too vague. With that wording, a policymaker or enforcer can arbitrarily determine if someone can afford it or not. That's why I'm asking for clarification.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:24 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:In Phatscotty's defense, he said once that he agreed that something had to be done to solve the health care crisis, but that the timing was wrong,... or something like that.


Yeah Woody. Your biggest problem is you keep trying to define me into an inescapable box, that you think you can thrash every time I step out of it.

I agreed with Frig.

+3
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:30 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
When will you stop supporting crony capitalism?

:roll:
I don't. But I do sometimes accept that compromise is necessary if we want any change at all.


LOL

You have got to own shares in Aetna. Sorry, no one could honestly be this naive.

Try I have pre-existing conditions, as do each of my sons and my husband. What I approve of is that they cannot now be denied coverage. I also have 20+ stepsons who are currently covered just because of the law.

I recognize that this is a boon to the insurance companies, but the Repubs pretty much made anything else impossible. If that makes me "naive", then so be it. I would rather be pragmatic than dogmatic when possible.


Well, at least you're admitting that you favor rent-seeking whenever it benefits you and when the costs are dispersed across others.

Hey, guys, I want all of you to pay for something which I deem too expensive. If you disagree, the mods will punish you and take your money anyway. Sounds legit!

There's another way of getting what you want without appealing to the state so that it can steal other people's wealth, but in these days, those kinds of alternatives seem largely forgotten.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby Juan_Bottom on Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:31 pm

Everyone agrees with Frig. The problem is that it's not up to us. :(


Here are some reactions:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/06/28 ... to-canada/


“I’m moving to Canada, the United States is entirely too socialist,” tweets @WallyWeldon

“The supreme court upheld Obama Care. That’s it. I’m moving to Canada!,” tweets @lucasdargis.

“#SCOTUS holds up free healthcare for everyone?! Screw this commie country, I’m moving to #Canada!, ” tweets @Vansummers (Huffington Post)
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:31 pm

Why am I not surprised that PLAYER denies supporting crony capitalism while clearly she is? Is she that naive or irrational? What is that which makes some people do something while failing to process what they're actually doing?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: ObamaCare: Supreme Court Ruling to Come this Week

Postby Woodruff on Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:33 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
kentington wrote:
Neoteny wrote:Today is a victory for America.


Do you really believe this?

This health care law requires people, even unemployed, to have health insurance or get fined and go to jail. If they don't have the money for the insurance, then do they have money to pay a fine?


Incorrect. It only requires those who CAN AFFORD to buy it to do so. Please see my synopsis of the bill earlier in this thread.


What do they mean by "can afford"?


Uh...be able to pay for within their means? I'm honestly confused by your question, because it seems...obvious.


So, if you have $2000 in your bank account and earn about $10,000 per year, can you afford insurance?

The term "can afford" is too vague. With that wording, a policymaker or enforcer can arbitrarily determine if someone can afford it or not. That's why I'm asking for clarification.


You're asking the wrong person. I am simply stating what the law says.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:33 pm

If that's what the law says, then does it strike you odd that it's so vague?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:35 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why am I not surprised that PLAYER denies supporting crony capitalism while clearly she is? Is she that naive or irrational? What is that which makes some people do something while failing to process what they're actually doing?

As far as I understand the opinion (have not had the time to read it, nor am I actually likely to do so.. the court has ruled and that is what matters now), I think Justice Roberts actually voiced most of what I think about the health care act and its constitutionality. That is, I thought the commerce argument was pretty shakey, but charging a penalty if you decide to leave the risk of your injuries/illness up to us to pay, is just fine.

Per the rest, you can have whatever opinion of me you wish. Your opinion has nothing to do with what I actually think.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:41 pm

general FYI, sure to be plenty of coverage on this, but NPR is going to do an hour special tonight . You can access it tonight through WPSU at 7PM ( link: http://www.wpsu.org )
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby Phatscotty on Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:43 pm

Image
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:46 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Why am I not surprised that PLAYER denies supporting crony capitalism while clearly she is? Is she that naive or irrational? What is that which makes some people do something while failing to process what they're actually doing?

As far as I understand the opinion (have not had the time to read it, nor am I actually likely to do so.. the court has ruled and that is what matters now), I think Justice Roberts actually voiced most of what I think about the health care act and its constitutionality. That is, I thought the commerce argument was pretty shakey, but charging a penalty if you decide to leave the risk of your injuries/illness up to us to pay, is just fine.

Per the rest, you can have whatever opinion of me you wish. Your opinion has nothing to do with what I actually think.


Enjoy supporting crony capitalism. It'll serve you and your kids very well in the short-run.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:53 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:Why am I not surprised that PLAYER denies supporting crony capitalism while clearly she is? Is she that naive or irrational? What is that which makes some people do something while failing to process what they're actually doing?

As far as I understand the opinion (have not had the time to read it, nor am I actually likely to do so.. the court has ruled and that is what matters now), I think Justice Roberts actually voiced most of what I think about the health care act and its constitutionality. That is, I thought the commerce argument was pretty shakey, but charging a penalty if you decide to leave the risk of your injuries/illness up to us to pay, is just fine.

Per the rest, you can have whatever opinion of me you wish. Your opinion has nothing to do with what I actually think.


Enjoy supporting crony capitalism. It'll serve you and your kids very well in the short-run.

You keep saying that, maybe eventually someone will believe it. Still won't make it true.

But nice try at diverting from the thread.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby Juan_Bottom on Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:54 pm

User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby Juan_Bottom on Thu Jun 28, 2012 4:56 pm

You can just ignore BBS if you like. He's not a real person; he's a fictional Character.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby john9blue on Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:43 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:http://www.upworthy.com/heres-what-obamacare-actually-does-for-you?c=bl3

Click image to enlarge.
image


just because someone supports certain aspects of obamacare doesn't mean that they have to support the mandate.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
Captain john9blue
 
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: ObamaCare: Supreme Court Ruling to Come this Week

Postby patches70 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:55 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
kentington wrote:
Neoteny wrote:Today is a victory for America.


Do you really believe this?

This health care law requires people, even unemployed, to have health insurance or get fined and go to jail. If they don't have the money for the insurance, then do they have money to pay a fine?


Incorrect. It only requires those who CAN AFFORD to buy it to do so. Please see my synopsis of the bill earlier in this thread.


What do they mean by "can afford"?


Uh...be able to pay for within their means? I'm honestly confused by your question, because it seems...obvious.


So, if you have $2000 in your bank account and earn about $10,000 per year, can you afford insurance?

The term "can afford" is too vague. With that wording, a policymaker or enforcer can arbitrarily determine if someone can afford it or not. That's why I'm asking for clarification.



If you can't afford insurance, and your company doesn't offer insurance, then you might be eligible for Medicaid. Medicaid has been expanded to include the overflow of people who will be required now to have insurance come 2014. A handy dandy little Obamacare calculator for ya her-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... -for-you/#

It seems, that if one makes 133% below the Federal poverty level then they can get Medicaid. Of course, Medicaid has premiums as well and Medicaid (I think) must be paid through direct deposit. Now, a homeless person, illegal alien and plenty of Rednecks don't have direct deposit, let alone even bank accounts. What about them?

How does the government plan to collect the "tax" from these people?

If you can't afford insurance, don't qualify for Medicaid, will you still be "taxed"?

And no, if you have to pay the penalty, you then still don't have insurance. You'll pay the penalty again the next year if you don't have insurance.
The penalty is $95 or 1% of your annual income, whichever is greater.

Just so many questions and things Congress have been vague or has not even thought of in all this.
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby Juan_Bottom on Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:05 pm

This is what happens when you wont let us have government provided health care. You get mandated insurance. :(

This is another thing that I am going to blame the South for.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby Juan_Bottom on Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:11 pm

Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: ObamaCare: Nullification

Postby patches70 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:11 pm

Night Strike wrote:
Majority Opinion wrote:(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibility payment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the appli-cation of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, “[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its sub-stance and application.” United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33–35. (b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax.


This argument isn't even coherent. He's saying that because the law does not state it is a tax, then the lawsuit can be brought now instead of later (for those who don't know, taxes can't be challenged until the tax is actually paid and direct harm is caused). However, he then states that just because it's not labeled as a tax doesn't mean it's not a tax. He has literally defined tax in two different ways.

Now, not only do we not know what the definition of "is" is, we also apparently don't know what the definition of "tax" is.


EDIT: Wow, reading the Dissent sounds exactly like what myself and most other conservatives have been arguing for a long time. Apparently my views aren't that far from the true intent of the Constitution, Woodruff.


The dissent is a much better argument.

Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito forcefully disagree with Roberts in their dissent. "[W]e cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not," the four Justices write. "[W]e have never—never—treated as a tax an exaction which faces up to the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and explicitly denominates the exaction a 'penalty.' Eighteen times in §5000A itself and elsewhere throughout the Act, Congress called the exaction in §5000A(b) a 'penalty.'"

If the individual mandate is indeed a tax, then by all means it is constitutional as Congress has the power to tax.
The problem is, as stated in the Act itself, this is not a tax, but is instead a "penalty", which is quite unconstitutional.

Obama himself said it wasn't a tax, but he doesn't really know much about anything.

It's not a tax, it's a penalty. The SCOTUS calls it a tax, so, I guess it is now a tax. The government can penalize you and call it a tax, for just about anything now. Welcome to the future. Consequences, consequences, intended or unintended, all have the same effect. They bite you in the azz later on.
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby Juan_Bottom on Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:19 pm

When?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby patches70 on Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:25 pm

Juan_Bottom wrote:When?



Are you asking "when" Obama said the individual mandate isn't a tax? In September of 2009, see and hear it for yourself and it's not the only time either-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_-qh9XD ... el&list=UL

Transcript-

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…
OBAMA: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…
OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…
OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…
OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: ObamaCare: Reactions

Postby Juan_Bottom on Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:28 pm

I'm saying when does it bite us in the ass?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Juan_Bottom
 
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 4:59 pm
Location: USA RULES! WHOOO!!!!

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users