Obamacare upheld

[jimnyc]

Wow

[jimnyc]

Even the mandate. Scary, as now the government has precedent to force us to purchase things. Sad day in America.

[jimnyc]

And appears that Chief Justice Roberts is the deciding vote, on the side of upholding the law.

[jimnyc]

NM, not sure he decided it, the score was 6-3 to uphold.

[jimnyc]

In a victory for President Obama, the Supreme Court decided to uphold his signature health care law's individual mandate in a split decision, upending speculation after hostile-seeming oral arguments in March that the justices would overturn the law. The mandate has been upheld as a tax, according to SCOTUSblog, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal wing of the court.

Twenty six states sued over the law, arguing that the individual mandate, which requires people to buy health insurance or face a fine starting in 2014, was unconstitutional. Opponents cast the individual mandate as the government forcing Americans to enter a market and buy a product against their will, while the government countered that the law was actually only regulating a market that everyone is already in, since almost everyone will seek health care at some point in his or her life.

Before oral arguments in March, polls of Supreme Court experts and scholars showed that most believed the mandate would be upheld as an exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. But after justices seemed deeply skeptical of the mandate in oral arguments in March, the consensus flipped, with most experts guessing the court would strike down the law.

House Republicans have vowed to repeal the entire law, though it's unlikely the Democratic-controlled Senate would let that happen.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-issue-obamacare-decision-135554880.html

[jimnyc]

Still stunned, as I expected the opposite. But the SC has ruled. I wonder how this will benefit Obama and his re-election campaign? I think this is huge for that, and will give him a huge boost. I dunno.

[jimnyc]

I haven't read the decision, but saw this blurb on Drudge:


<tt><tt>The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate. </tt></tt>

What is the point of upholding the individual mandate, if the mandate can just be ignored?

[jimnyc]

<tt><tt>The court reinforces that individuals cant simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate. </tt></tt>

You can tell by the attributes that I simply copied and pasted... You can see that Drudge corrected its error and added a t to the CAN, so my prior post is wrong, one cannot refuse to pay...

[Mr. P]

Keeping my Avatar upside down now for sure!

[jimnyc]

Keeping my Avatar upside down now for sure!

I don't blame you.

You know, I can cover my eyes and stick my nose up at the many changes. Health care does need some sort of reform.... But FORCE us to buy something we may not want? And then penalize us if we don't want it? I hope they'll be forcing this on illegal aliens as well, and ensuring that they pay the tax if they don't.

[jimnyc]

So the SC upholds this law - and even states that the individual mandate IS a tax...

Obama: Mandate is Not a TaxPresident Obama signaled in our interview that he was prepared to address some of the concerns raised by key Senator Jay Rockefeller, who called the Baucus bill a "big middle class tax increase" this week.

That means he'll support more subsidies for middle class families.

But in our most spirited exchange, the President refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy health insurance is equivalent to a tax.

Here it is:

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."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

FFFKK THEM! Im not obeying such an UnConstitutional ruling or law!
Every true patriot must be honored bound to say hell no!
Otherwise they are yielding to the destruction of this nation!
I will not pay!!!!!! Dont doubt me as I never yield or break my word!
This shows the corruption that has set in too deep.
FFKK obama and SCOTUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Tyr

[Little-Acorn]

Obamacare has been uphelp in its entirety by the Supreme Court. They only made a few minor mods.

The Supreme Court merely changed the name of the "mandate" to call it a "tax".

Full text of the Opinion and Dissent can be found here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393

The upshot is, in a few years, most people will find it most economical to drop their insurance intirely, and only pay the mandated "tax", until they get sick.

Once they get sick or injured, then they can sign up for "insurance", and the company is forced to take them despite their "pre-existing" sickness or injury. They can stay signed up, paying the higher "insurance" rate, until they are cured, then drop the insurance and go back to paying only the lower "tax".

Lather, rinse, repeat.

At least until Congress raises the "tax"... which they will one minute after midnight pretty soon.

[logroller]

First link i found to text of full ruling--

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/supreme-court-health-care-decision-full-text/2012/06/28/gJQAueJ88V_blog.html

[gabosaurus]

I believe the ruling will prove to be a huge victory for Republicans. This will galvanize their campaign to defeat Obama in November. Because the only way to challenge and overturn the ruling is to win the White House.

Believe it or not, I have always been against Obamacare. I believe individuals should be able to decide for themselves. Under insured people like my sister and her husband will be unduly financially burdened if the full ruling is put into effect.

[tournesol]

Affordable care for all Americans.

A good thing.

[logroller]

FFFKK THEM! Im not obeying such an UnConstitutional ruling or law!
Every true patriot must be honored bound to say hell no!
Otherwise they are yielding to the destruction of this nation!
I will not pay!!!!!! Dont doubt me as I never yield or break my word!
This shows the corruption that has set in too deep.
FFKK obama and SCOTUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Tyr
You should include congress too; they passed the law after all.

[taft2012]

Still stunned, as I expected the opposite. But the SC has ruled. I wonder how this will benefit Obama and his re-election campaign? I think this is huge for that, and will give him a huge boost. I dunno.

No, I think it's a Pyrrhic victory.

Now the impetus to replace him in November is even stronger for independents not happy with Obamacare. Without Obamacare dangling over their heads they might have gone for the incumbent.

This was lose-lose for Obama, win-win for the GOP.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Affordable care for all Americans.

A good thing.

Spit on our Constitution a good thing ?
With this ruling our government just became our master.
Personal liberty no longer exists, liberty no longer exists and any that can not see that are blind. There is now no limit to that which our goverment may force us to buy or deny our right to buy!
Wallow in your blindness and your stupidity.. No doubt that you deserve no better..
Sold out liberty for a bit of security, you dumb fkkk.-Tyr

[Thunderknuckles]

Affordable care for all Americans.

A good thing.
In general yes it is. Doing it by granting government the power to compel you to purchase anything they deem good for you is NOT a good thing. Think beyond the health care issue.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You should include congress too; they passed the law after all.

By hook and crook they did, complete with bribes.
By the way ffkk them too. I abandone my principles for no man or group of men..
How many here can say and do the same?-Tyr

[CSM]

Hmm aquick read of the ruling makes me think this is not as bad as it seems. I like that they ruled the States cannot be held hostage to Medicare and that a tax by any other name is still a tax. I will have to read a lot closer when I get home but this may not be as bad as it seems. Also, I have no doubt that Obama and the current Congress has got a whole lot of tap dancing to do. Another side effect is that my skepticism of the Supreme Court has risen once again. Just another political institution filled with appointees more concerned over power than the good of the people.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Hmm aquick read of the ruling makes me think this is not as bad as it seems. I like that they ruled the States cannot be held hostage to Medicare and that a tax by any other name is still a tax. I will have to read a lot closer when I get home but this may not be as bad as it seems. Also, I have no doubt that Obama and the current Congress has got a whole lot of tap dancing to do. Another side effect is that my skepticism of the Supreme Court has risen once again. Just another political institution filled with appointees more concerned over power than the good of the people.


That scum Kagan did not recuse herself. Says it all right there IMHO. SCOTUS IS A JOKE!
VOTE HIM OUT OR THIS NATION IS DOOMED!
May God cursed the goddamn ffking bastard!
I'll fight for my children and grandchildren's future!
A damn good time to buy more ammmmmmmmmmmmmmo. Not joking! JEFFERSON WAS RIGHT , TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE NOURISHED BY THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS..
ANYBODY THAT DOES NOT LIKE THAT COMMENT CAN KISS MY ASS!-Tyr

[jimnyc]

I believe the ruling will prove to be a huge victory for Republicans. This will galvanize their campaign to defeat Obama in November. Because the only way to challenge and overturn the ruling is to win the White House.

Believe it or not, I have always been against Obamacare. I believe individuals should be able to decide for themselves. Under insured people like my sister and her husband will be unduly financially burdened if the full ruling is put into effect.

I obviously haven't read thousands of pages, so I can't clearly say what else I dislike, other than the costs... BUT, I'll never be convinced that the government should have the power to force people to have health insurance. This is nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of our nation.

[jimnyc]

Affordable care for all Americans.

A good thing.

Forced to purchase, in a FREE country, is a bad thing. Buy it and benefit from it if you choose, or choose not to and pay cash or don't get service.

[jimnyc]

And appears that Chief Justice Roberts is the deciding vote, on the side of upholding the law.


NM, not sure he decided it, the score was 6-3 to uphold.

Roberts was the deciding vote and the tally was actually 5-4

[logroller]

On a personal note, this is great support for my tax that isn't a tax debate.:dance:

[Roo]

No, I think it's a Pyrrhic victory.

Now the impetus to replace him in November is even stronger for independents not happy with Obamacare. Without Obamacare dangling over their heads they might have gone for the incumbent.

This was lose-lose for Obama, win-win for the GOP.

I hope you are right.

[Little-Acorn]

Affordable care for all Americans.

A good thing.

I see the Kool-aid is already having its intended effect.

Since the 2000-plus page bill is called "Affordable Health Care Act", it must be affordable.

Next you'll tell me that today's liberals are encouraging liberty.

And that American conservatives are people who want to keep government the same as it is now.

(sigh)

[fj1200]

Affordable care for all Americans.

A good thing.

Clearly you are confused by the name of the act; they called it the Affordable Care Act so it must give us affordable care. :rolleyes:

[Kathianne]

Late last night, early morning I read something that gave me very bad feelings about this ruling. Went to bed around 4, woke up a little after 10 to find what had been ruled. An hour of total depression.

Not so much anymore, there are some silver linings. One, as someone said earlier, this may well energize people to vote for those wanting to change this monstrosity of 'reform.' It's totally in the political arena now, not the courts.

Roberts choosing to write the decision may actually be why he went on the side he did, after all, it's he who decided that the reason it was 'legal' is the tax, indisputably a power of the Federal government.

An interesting read on his ruling, still early days for complex document. There may actually be the basis for reining in Congress's powers on taxing and commerce control:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/06/chief-justice-roberts-writes-opinion.html

[tournesol]

Spit on our Constitution a good thing ?
With this ruling our government just became our master.
Personal liberty no longer exists, liberty no longer exists and any that can not see that are blind. There is now no limit to that which our goverment may force us to buy or deny our right to buy!
Wallow in your blindness and your stupidity.. No doubt that you deserve no better..
Sold out liberty for a bit of security, you dumb fkkk.-Tyr

Tears (Tyrs?) of impotent rage.

[Kathianne]

Another silver lining:

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/im-not-down-on-john-roberts/


I’m Not Down on John Roberts (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/im-not-down-on-john-roberts/) Posted by Erick Erickson (http://www.redstate.com/users/erick/) (Diary (http://www.redstate.com/erick/))


First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.


Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.


Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.


Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.


Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue is gone.


Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.



60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground. Oh, and as I mentioned earlier, because John Roberts concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.


It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.


*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now.

[tournesol]

Forced to purchase, in a FREE country, is a bad thing. Buy it and benefit from it if you choose, or choose not to and pay cash or don't get service.

When you drive a car insurance is mandatory. It's inevitable that at some point in your life you're going to need health care. What if you have no money to pay? Doctors, who are bound by the Hippocratic Oath, have to treat you. When everyone is insured this is no problem and with everyone being mandatory insured, the individual costs go down.

It's just common sense.

[CSM]

When you drive a car insurance is mandatory. It's inevitable that at some point in your life you're going to need health care. What if you have no money to pay? Doctors, who are bound by the Hippocratic Oath, have to treat you. When everyone is insured this is no problem and with everyone being mandatory insured, the individual costs go down.

It's just common sense.

I just want to point out that auto insurance is NOT mandatory in mys stATE.

[fj1200]

When you drive a car insurance is mandatory. It's inevitable that at some point in your life you're going to need health care. What if you have no money to pay? Doctors, who are bound by the Hippocratic Oath, have to treat you. When everyone is insured this is no problem and with everyone being mandatory insured, the individual costs go down.

It's just common sense.

Not really but why is an insurance company obliged to cover you even if you were not a paying customer? They are not bound by an oath.

[tournesol]

I just want to point out that auto insurance is NOT mandatory in mys stATE.

In that case I will avoid visiting your state. What if someone gets hit by a car and the driver can't pay for the damages?

[tournesol]

Not really but why is an insurance company obliged to cover you even if you were not a paying customer? They are not bound by an oath.

They are not. If you can't find insurance that'll cover you, you can't drive. Simple.

[jimnyc]

When you drive a car insurance is mandatory. It's inevitable that at some point in your life you're going to need health care. What if you have no money to pay? Doctors, who are bound by the Hippocratic Oath, have to treat you. When everyone is insured this is no problem and with everyone being mandatory insured, the individual costs go down.

It's just common sense.

Not all states have car insurance as mandatory...

And the oath doctors take has nothing about "having" to treat patients who can't pay, simply isn't there. There are MANY private hospitals around the nation who will ship you off to a community hospital if you have no insurance. Get your facts straight. And with the coverage being mandatory, the individual costs are expected to increase.

[fj1200]

They are not. If you can't find insurance that'll cover you, you can't drive. Simple.

The subject is not car insurance.

[DragonStryk72]

Affordable care for all Americans.

A good thing.

How? It forces people to buy something that costs of hundreds of dollars a month.


When you drive a car insurance is mandatory. It's inevitable that at some point in your life you're going to need health care. What if you have no money to pay? Doctors, who are bound by the Hippocratic Oath, have to treat you. When everyone is insured this is no problem and with everyone being mandatory insured, the individual costs go down.

It's just common sense.

Car Insurance is mandatory because it's for the in case point of you hitting another driver. It prevent others from being screwed over. As well, you have to choose to buy a car. DO we get to choose to be alive? Seems sort of necessary. If I can't afford car insurance, I can opt to take the bus, or a bike, or set up a ride to work.

What are my options when I can't really afford healthcare? Oh wait, there aren't any, so I'm fucked. Thank you Obama!

Watch for the eviction rates to rise in 2014, as people who can't really afford healthcare end up falling behind in their other bills.

[tournesol]

Not all states have car insurance as mandatory...

And the oath doctors take has nothing about "having" to treat patients who can't pay, simply isn't there. There are MANY private hospitals around the nation who will ship you off to a community hospital if you have no insurance. Get your facts straight.


And who pays for that community hospital? Right, the insurers, paid by your health care insurance premium. Again it's only common sense when everyone is obliged to contribute.



And with the coverage being mandatory, the individual costs are expected to increase.

That makes no sense at all. I did some research. Before this law, a health insurance in NY will cost you 800 dollars a month.

Where I live we have mandatory health insurance. I pay 120 Euro a month, and that includes dental care.

[DragonStryk72]

The subject is not car insurance.

nvm, wrong poster. Sorry

[jimnyc]

And who pays for that community hospital? Right, the insurers, paid by your health care insurance premium. Again it's only common sense when everyone is obliged to contribute.

No, the taxpayers. The point is, you stated that a doctors oath required them to see a patient, and it doesn't.


That makes no sense at all. I did some research. Before this law, a health insurance in NY will cost you 800 dollars a month.

Where I live we have mandatory health insurance. I pay 120 Euro a month, and that includes dental care.

You didn't research very well, as it's common knowledge that the underlying costs of this new healthcare will increase, and insurance companies are expected to increase premiums AND co-pays.

[tournesol]

How? It forces people to buy something that costs of hundreds of dollars a month.



Car Insurance is mandatory because it's for the in case point of you hitting another driver. It prevent others from being screwed over. As well, you have to choose to buy a car. DO we get to choose to be alive? Seems sort of necessary. If I can't afford car insurance, I can opt to take the bus, or a bike, or set up a ride to work.

What are my options when I can't really afford healthcare? Oh wait, there aren't any, so I'm fucked. Thank you Obama!

Watch for the eviction rates to rise in 2014, as people who can't really afford healthcare end up falling behind in their other bills.

The whole idea behind mandatory health care is lowering the costs for the individual. Health care insurance doesn't have to cost hundreds of dollars. Like I said, I pay 120 Euro a month for an extensive coverage. If I want cheaper, I can get insurance for as low as 90 Euros.

[tournesol]

No, the taxpayers. The point is, you stated that a doctors oath required them to see a patient, and it doesn't.



You didn't research very well, as it's common knowledge that the underlying costs of this new healthcare will increase, and insurance companies are expected to increase premiums AND co-pays.

That defies all logic. When a product is sold by bulk the costs per item go down. You don't believe me that I can have insurance at only 90 Euros? If health care insurance was voluntary here, it would have prices as you have in the US now, and I couldn't afford it. But it isn't, so the premiums can be kept low.

[DragonStryk72]

And who pays for that community hospital? Right, the insurers, paid by your health care insurance premium. Again it's only common sense when everyone is obliged to contribute.



That makes no sense at all. I did some research. Before this law, a health insurance in NY will cost you 800 dollars a month.

Where I live we have mandatory health insurance. I pay 120 Euro a month, and that includes dental care.

Alright, so let's roll with that: You're expenses for the month total up $1050, and you make $1100 a month after taxes before Obamacare. An extra $120 a month, taken away before you ever see it means guess what? You're fucked now. Apparently, you don't get to have groceries, or electricity. I'm sure malnourishment won't cause any serious health problems amongst the poor, who will then get fucked again when they have to pay their co-pay, which shorts you further on other bills.

And then of course, we have the fact that it's a crime to not have health insurance, meaning you can go to jail for it. Won't that be fun? Now we get to jail people for being poor, and putting more priority on having a place for them and their family to live.

[jimnyc]

That defies all logic. When a product is sold by bulk the costs per item go down. You don't believe me that I can have insurance at only 90 Euros? If health care insurance was voluntary here, it would have prices as you have in the US now, and I couldn't afford it. But it isn't, so the premiums can be kept low.

I'm not disputing anything at all about what you pay wherever you are, that's not the topic. But if you truly would research the issue we're discussing, you would find out that this entire "affordable care act" is going to cost the healthcare industry more money. It will cost insurance companies more money. This will be reflected in insurance premiums and co-pays.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tears (Tyrs?) of impotent rage.

Long distance courage maggot?

[DragonStryk72]

That defies all logic. When a product is sold by bulk the costs per item go down. You don't believe me that I can have insurance at only 90 Euros? If health care insurance was voluntary here, it would have prices as you have in the US now, and I couldn't afford it. But it isn't, so the premiums can be kept low.

Did you know that one of the main problems with health care is malpractice suits? Juries routinely award multi-million dollar settlements to basically anyone over here, because they want to take a swipe at the "evil insurance companies".

Spill hot coffee on your lap because you stuck the cup in your crotch while you were driving? Get $1,000,000.

Did Obamacare contain even a single line of protection from this sort of bullshit? No. Not one little bit, so now, we've basically just put into legislation millions of more chances for them to get horribly sued.

[tournesol]

Long distance courage maggot?

Would you have such a foul mouth when not protected by the anonymity of the internet?

[CSM]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-effects/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

"In 2014, the penalty will be $285 per family or 1% of income, whichever is greater. By 2016, it goes up to $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income."

[tournesol]

Did you know that one of the main problems with health care is malpractice suits? Juries routinely award multi-million dollar settlements to basically anyone over here, because they want to take a swipe at the "evil insurance companies".

Spill hot coffee on your lap because you stuck the cup in your crotch while you were driving? Get $1,000,000.

Did Obamacare contain even a single line of protection from this sort of bullshit? No. Not one little bit, so now, we've basically just put into legislation millions of more chances for them to get horribly sued.

I'll have to admit, you have a point there.

[ConHog]

You should include congress too; they passed the law after all.

True, but none of them are Kenyans...........

On a serious note. Like Jim I am shocked. That's all I can really say right now. I never thought the individual mandate would survive.

[OCA]

I don't blame you.

You know, I can cover my eyes and stick my nose up at the many changes. Health care does need some sort of reform.... But FORCE us to buy something we may not want? And then penalize us if we don't want it? I hope they'll be forcing this on illegal aliens as well, and ensuring that they pay the tax if they don't.

So if Jimnyc decided he didn't want health care insurance and came down with a serious illness could the hospital or doctors say "gee Jim you don't have health insurance and we are not willing to finance you the 30-50 g its going to cost for your care so we are simply going to refuse to treat you"........I think they should be able to do that.

Great day for health care in America....no more talk about the unconstitutionality of the "Affordable Care Act", its officially constitutional.

[OCA]

Spit on our Constitution a good thing ?

Sorry, its officially been ruled constitutional.

[OCA]

In general yes it is. Doing it by granting government the power to compel you to purchase anything they deem good for you is NOT a good thing. Think beyond the health care issue.

If this had been overturned should doctors have been given the right to refuse care to the uninsured?

[OCA]

Forced to purchase, in a FREE country, is a bad thing. Buy it and benefit from it if you choose, or choose not to and pay cash or don't get service.

People can't afford to pay cash and doctors are forced to care for the uninsured at which time the costs are passed on to the "insured"....what is American about that?

[ConHog]

People can't afford to pay cash and doctors are forced to care for the uninsured at which time the costs are passed on to the "insured"....what is American about that?

No insurance, no service

Do you go into Wal Mart and say "gee Wal Mart, I really need some food to keep living, but I can't afford to pay, so pass the cost on to the next guy?"

[OCA]

Not all states have car insurance as mandatory...

And the oath doctors take has nothing about "having" to treat patients who can't pay, simply isn't there. There are MANY private hospitals around the nation who will ship you off to a community hospital if you have no insurance. Get your facts straight. And with the coverage being mandatory, the individual costs are expected to increase.

Jimmy, you get gut shot no hospital in this nation is going to "ship you to a community hospital", oh maybe after they stabilize you but they are still going to provide you initial treatment whether you have the ability to pay or not.

Lets oput it this way, you are hungry, you go into a restaurant and order, eat and then when the bill comes say "I have no money", should the restaurant be forced to eat the cost of the meal or pass it on simply because you were hungry? Same shit with healthcare.

We have too many morons in this country who would rather buy a 70' tv but not purchase health insurance yet when they get sick they sure want to be cared for.....fuck em, force them to do the right thing.

[OCA]

No insurance, no service

Do you go into Wal Mart and say "gee Wal Mart, I really need some food to keep living, but I can't afford to pay, so pass the cost on to the next guy?"

Exactly, get shot in the gut, go to the ER but have zero insurance and little cash, eat shit.........go into the parking lot and die.

[ConHog]

Jimmy, you get gut shot no hospital in this nation is going to "ship you to a community hospital", oh maybe after they stabilize you but they are still going to provide you initial treatment whether you have the ability to pay or not.

Lets oput it this way, you are hungry, you go into a restaurant and order, eat and then when the bill comes say "I have no money", should the restaurant be forced to eat the cost of the meal or pass it on simply because you were hungry? Same shit with healthcare.

We have too many morons in this country who would rather buy a 70' tv but not purchase health insurance yet when they get sick they sure want to be cared for.....fuck em, force them to do the right thing.

That's a big fuckin TV.

[ConHog]

FFFKK THEM! Im not obeying such an UnConstitutional ruling or law!
Every true patriot must be honored bound to say hell no!
Otherwise they are yielding to the destruction of this nation!
I will not pay!!!!!! Dont doubt me as I never yield or break my word!
This shows the corruption that has set in too deep.
FFKK obama and SCOTUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Tyr

SO Tyr has no medical insurance? Well then this bill is to his advantage, why is he so pissed?

[OCA]

That's a big fuckin TV.

70' at B.J's...saw it the other day, like 3500 g, its huge, who the hell needs that big a TV?

[ConHog]

70' at B.J's...saw it the other day, like 3500 g, its huge, who the hell needs that big a TV?

Surely you mean 70 INCHES, not 70 FEET?

:coffee:

[OCA]

Surely you mean 70 INCHES, not 70 FEET?

:coffee:

Yes, inches.

Wrong button, on the android.

[ConHog]

Yes, inches.

Wrong button, on the android.



http://mashable.com/2012/06/18/sharp-largest-t/


I'm cancelling my health insurance and buying one. :lol:

[red state]

Yes, Mr. P, we are definitely in distress with B.O. making illegal invaders LEGAL, winning the suit against AZ and now the B.O. Health Care upheld. Next, just as sure as the world, will be an attack from Holder on Voter ID.....wait for it!!! Not only will he keep his job within the time frame of this administration but he's gonna make for sure that he has his same job within the NEXT B.O. Administration.

This is taxation without representation and we've been there before. Only difference is we had REAL patriots and REAL men the first time it happened. Now we have homosexuals galore, child molesters, OCCUPIERS, community organizers, benefit recipients and others with NO backbone whatsoever. This makes us a weak Nation indeed.

Bottom line is that this is an attack on FREEDOM and really addresses nothing in line with healthcare. Too many folks get free insurance now (many are our border invaders). So, those who are in favor of this BEWARE. The next stop will be only one health care provider (BIG BRO). Then, they'll dictate whatever else they want you to buy (say electric cars). So go along with the rest of the trash flowing down the gutter...I intend to fight against the current and I'm sure my good friend Tyr will do the same (whether he had insurance or now). We good ole country boys get survive....even if we have to sell the farm to pay for services provided to us. We have dignity, morals and standards.

Again, you are correct Mr. P. in what you wrote; "Keeping my Avatar upside down now for sure!"[/QUOTE]

[revelarts]

many here have stated that this will "work against Obama" in November" and "rally the conservatives".

OK
But what has Romney pledged to do about this?
If he's elected will he push for and SIGN a repeal?
How many congressmen can we name that will work to repeal?

This isn't a gotcha question i really want to know.

Edit: His web site an an announcement says Ronmey will "act to repeal".
I'll have to read more to reassure me but i may become a one issue voter here.

[jimnyc]

Jimmy, you get gut shot no hospital in this nation is going to "ship you to a community hospital", oh maybe after they stabilize you but they are still going to provide you initial treatment whether you have the ability to pay or not.

Lets oput it this way, you are hungry, you go into a restaurant and order, eat and then when the bill comes say "I have no money", should the restaurant be forced to eat the cost of the meal or pass it on simply because you were hungry? Same shit with healthcare.

We have too many morons in this country who would rather buy a 70' tv but not purchase health insurance yet when they get sick they sure want to be cared for.....fuck em, force them to do the right thing.

No doctor is under any obligation to treat a patient who cannot pay. Hospitals that don't want to treat patients that cannot pay, and ship them to taxpayer funded hospitals, happens all the time. They will likely stabilize severe cases as it wouldn't make sense to have someone die before they can get elsewhere. As soon as stabilized, away they go, as it should be.

[Abbey Marie]

I believe the ruling will prove to be a huge victory for Republicans. This will galvanize their campaign to defeat Obama in November. Because the only way to challenge and overturn the ruling is to win the White House.

Believe it or not, I have always been against Obamacare. I believe individuals should be able to decide for themselves. Under insured people like my sister and her husband will be unduly financially burdened if the full ruling is put into effect.

yup. I sent Romney another contribution about 1/2 hour after I heard the ruling.

[aboutime]

many here have stated that this will "work against Obama" in November" and "rally the conservatives".

OK
But what has Romney pledged to do about this?
If he's elected will he push for and SIGN a repeal?
How many congressmen can we name that will work to repeal?

This isn't a gotcha question i really want to know.

Edit: His web site an an announcement says Ronmey will "act to repeal".
I'll have to read more to reassure me but i may become a one issue voter here.


If you have such doubts about Romney, yet you never bother to question the ineptness of Obama. Why don't you just vote for Romney in November and learn what A REAL PRESIDENT is supposed to do?

[revelarts]

If you have such doubts about Romney, yet you never bother to question the ineptness of Obama. Why don't you just vote for Romney in November and learn what A REAL PRESIDENT is supposed to do?

Don't get me started

[OCA]

No doctor is under any obligation to treat a patient who cannot pay. Hospitals that don't want to treat patients that cannot pay, and ship them to taxpayer funded hospitals, happens all the time. They will likely stabilize severe cases as it wouldn't make sense to have someone die before they can get elsewhere. As soon as stabilized, away they go, as it should be.

I dare you to find 1 doctor who will not treat emergency or urgent care cases because of
"ability to pay", they do it for fear of lawsuit and then when payment is not made the repercussions of non-payment are handed down until they reach...VOILA! the premium payer, you and I.

Doesn't matter now though, we will ALL be insured.

[OCA]

If you have such doubts about Romney, yet you never bother to question the ineptness of Obama. Why don't you just vote for Romney in November and learn what A REAL PRESIDENT is supposed to do?

Why do you assume Romney will be a "real president"? Because he is a Repub? :laugh2:
:laugh2:

Pssst...hint hint....it won't be any better under a Repub, two peas in the same pod.

Maybe he will ship some more jobs overseas.

[OCA]

yup. I sent Romney another contribution about 1/2 hour after I heard the ruling.

Abbey...u must be loaded to burn cash like that.

[Abbey Marie]

Affordable care for all Americans.

A good thing.

I told my husband as soon as this opinion came down, liberals we never see on here would come out of the woodwork to defend it. :laugh:

[Abbey Marie]

Abbey...u must be loaded to burn cash like that.

There you are! Nah, just loving me some Romster. :cool:

[jimnyc]

I dare you to find 1 doctor who will not treat emergency or urgent care cases because of
"ability to pay", they do it for fear of lawsuit and then when payment is not made the repercussions of non-payment are handed down until they reach...VOILA! the premium payer, you and I.

Doesn't matter now though, we will ALL be insured.

Emergency care only, that I agree with. And even that has it's limitations, as the hospitals will determine what is an emergency and what is not. Need regular care? Not a doctor on Earth needs to see you without payment.

[Abbey Marie]

Haven't checked this yet, but I heard earlier that insurance stocks are tanking.

[aboutime]

Why do you assume Romney will be a "real president"? Because he is a Repub? :laugh2:
:laugh2:

Pssst...hint hint....it won't be any better under a Repub, two peas in the same pod.

Maybe he will ship some more jobs overseas.


Truth is. I...Me, would make a better president than Obama, or Romney. But I am unable to run, can't afford to run, and I wouldn't last past the first day in office as president. I'm too honest to be anywhere near Washington DC for any reason.

Having said that. Since I cannot be the new person in the White House. I have watched Obama destroy the Office, disobey his Oath of office, disobey our Constitution, and intentionally Divide this nation based on nothing less than pure Racist Idea's, and Socialist principles designed to Destroy America.
On the other hand. I took the same Oath more than 5 times during my naval Career, and when I retired in 1995. That OATH did NOT retire.
THAT is why I want Obama replaced with anyone who doesn't spell their name OBAMA.

[aboutime]

Don't get me started


Do as you suggested. End of discussion.

[revelarts]

If the senate and House doesn't stay/turn republican or independents Repeal with never get done. No matter what Romney and house republicans SAY they'll do.
it's will all be just a show if they don't have the basic numbers.


<tbody>


Current Party Numbers: 112th Congress, 2nd Session



House
Senate


Democrats
191
51


Independents
0
2


Republicans
242
47


Vacancies
2


</tbody>

[revelarts]

Do as you suggested. End of discussion.

Romney turns my stomach, Obama turns my stomach.
I still may vote 3rd party, a real president and congress would follow the constitution and follow the people. Until then mr. P's Avatar is right on target.

[ConHog]

Why do you assume Romney will be a "real president"? Because he is a Repub? :laugh2:
:laugh2:

Pssst...hint hint....it won't be any better under a Repub, two peas in the same pod.

Maybe he will ship some more jobs overseas.

Abouttime is determined to label Rev a liberal. :lol:

[Missileman]

And who pays for that community hospital? Right, the insurers, paid by your health care insurance premium. Again it's only common sense when everyone is obliged to contribute.



That makes no sense at all. I did some research. Before this law, a health insurance in NY will cost you 800 dollars a month.

Where I live we have mandatory health insurance. I pay 120 Euro a month, and that includes dental care.

If EVERYONE were going to be contributing, you might have an argument. The Obama admin has been handing out waivers like candy. With all of those people NOT contributing, who might you suppose is going to make up their difference? Also, common sense would dictate that you would make the rules to get the most number of people paying premiums every month in order to make everyone's share as small as possible. Explain the logic then of allowing able-bodied 18-26 year-olds to not pay any premiums but remain on their parents plan.

[Little-Acorn]

I still may vote 3rd party, a real president and congress would follow the constitution and follow the people.

Since when would voting 3rd party contribute anything to getting us a "real President and Congress"?

It will simply help put Obama back in office.

During the primary is when you should have voted 3rd party. I did.

Now that the General Election is coming, your choices have significantly narrowed. The fact that you don't like it, doesn't change the fact.

Are you going to vote for the best available alternative? Or just start squalling, and take your ball and go home to mommy?

[ConHog]

If EVERYONE were going to be contributing, you might have an argument. The Obama admin has been handing out waivers like candy. With all of those people NOT contributing, who might you suppose is going to make up their difference? Also, common sense would dictate that you would make the rules to get the most number of people paying premiums every month in order to make everyone's share as small as possible. Explain the logic then of allowing able-bodied 18-26 year-olds to not pay any premiums but remain on their parents plan.



I really wouldn't have much of a problem with this, if we didn't know based off the evidence from other programs that those who pay nothing will suck up the biggest share of the benefits.

[aboutime]

Romney turns my stomach, Obama turns my stomach.
I still may vote 3rd party, a real president and congress would follow the constitution and follow the people. Until then mr. P's Avatar is right on target.


You have the right to vote for whoever you want. But if you think, honestly, that voting for a 3rd party candidate will actually change the present state of our union. You can waste your vote if you like.
So tell us now. What 3rd party candidate is eligible to win, and sworn to follow both the constitution, and the wishes of the Entire Population of America?

Seems to me. Everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 were convinced, like you are now. That he would abide by, and follow the constitution, and the wishes of the People who supported him.
And we all know how that turned out.
Two wrongs STILL...do not make a right.

[logroller]

Alright, so let's roll with that: You're expenses for the month total up $1050, and you make $1100 a month after taxes before Obamacare. An extra $120 a month, taken away before you ever see it means guess what? You're fucked now. Apparently, you don't get to have groceries, or electricity. I'm sure malnourishment won't cause any serious health problems amongst the poor, who will then get fucked again when they have to pay their co-pay, which shorts you further on other bills.

And then of course, we have the fact that it's a crime to not have health insurance, meaning you can go to jail for it. Won't that be fun? Now we get to jail people for being poor, and putting more priority on having a place for them and their family to live.
There is an income threshold for publically subsidized insurance. Not sure what it is, but I think it's around the income you quoted.

Since when would voting 3rd party contribute anything to getting us a "real President and Congress"?

It will simply help put Obama back in office.

During the primary is when you should have voted 3rd party. I did.

Now that the General Election is coming, your choices have significantly narrowed. The fact that you don't like it, doesn't change the fact.

Are you going to vote for the best available alternative? Or just start squalling, and take your ball and go home to mommy?
rev can it's for whomever he so chooses. If you think his candidate is wrong for th job, that's one thing; but to deride his right to vote for whomever he chooses is despicable.


You have the right to vote for whoever you want. But if you think, honestly, that voting for a 3rd party candidate will actually change the present state of our union. You can waste your vote if you like.
So tell us now. What 3rd party candidate is eligible to win, and sworn to follow both the constitution, and the wishes of the Entire Population of America?

Seems to me. Everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 were convinced, like you are now. That he would abide by, and follow the constitution, and the wishes of the People who supported him.
And we all know how that turned out.
Two wrongs STILL...do not make a right. as it turns out, his healthcare reformis constitutional; continuing to assume or believe otherwise doesnt change that. As far as the wishes of the People who supported him, this ruling has assuredly invigorated many of his 2008 supporters. It's never fun to be on the losing end of an argument; but atleast have the grace to accept it. I'd have never thought this would stand, but it did. Now it's time to focus on Congress changing the law. It's no longer in the legal purview, and I struggle to understand how the president has much to do with those changes at this point. Saving veto power, of course. As rev pointed out, the numbers aren't there in congress.

[ConHog]

There is an income threshold for publically subsidized insurance. Not sure what it is, but I think it's around the income you quoted.

rev can it's for whomever he so chooses. If you think his candidate is wrong for th job, that's one thing; but to deride his right to vote for whomever he chooses is despicable.

as it turns out, his healthcare reformis constitutional; continuing to assume or believe otherwise doesnt change that. As far as the wishes of the People who supported him, this ruling has assuredly invigorated many of his 2008 supporters. It's never fun to be on the losing end of an argument; but atleast have the grace to accept it. I'd have never thought this would stand, but it did. Now it's time to focus on Congress changing the law. It's no longer in the legal purview, and I struggle to understand how the president has much to do with those changes at this point. Saving veto power, of course. As rev pointed out, the numbers aren't there in congress.

stop being so rational.






I don't see how the mandate survived either. But as you say, that fight is lost.

[jimnyc]

I don't see how the mandate survived either. But as you say, that fight is lost.

Win the WH and take back the senate. I wouldn't say that's impossible. And if that happens, the numbers are there. In fact, I think those who want to repeal the individual mandate might get a few Democrats to support. Keep in mind, 70% of the nation wanted that part gone. Move just 4 Democrats over, or even 3, and that's 3 or 4 less seats needed to take back.

It IS constitutional right now, but I can see a repeal of the 'tax' easily at one point, and probably a tug of war of sorts until these idiots figure it out, if at all.

[logroller]

stop being so rational.






I don't see how the mandate survived either. But as you say, that fight is lost.

The legal battle is lost. Politically, it's never ending. I'd like to see pelosi out of office. That's my sincerest hope...and talk about a long shot. But given today's Scotus ruling, miracles happen.;)

[ConHog]

Win the WH and take back the senate. I wouldn't say that's impossible. And if that happens, the numbers are there. In fact, I think those who want to repeal the individual mandate might get a few Democrats to support. Keep in mind, 70% of the nation wanted that part gone. Move just 4 Democrats over, or even 3, and that's 3 or 4 less seats needed to take back.

It IS constitutional right now, but I can see a repeal of the 'tax' easily at one point, and probably a tug of war of sorts until these idiots figure it out, if at all.


The legal battle is lost. Politically, it's never ending. I'd like to see pelosi out of office. That's my sincerest hope...and talk about a long shot. But given today's Scotus ruling, miracles happen.;)

I was referring to the legal battle. Of course the law can be repealed.

and LR I agree about Pelosi. I would pledge my vote to Obama if I were guaranteed that she would be removed from government service. That bitch is scary.

[Little-Acorn]

but to deride his right to vote for whomever he chooses is despicable.


I'm not deriding his right to vote.

I'm deriding the childishness and stupidity of his choice.

When you vote in a way that puts Obama and the leftist fanatics back into office, you deserve all the deriding you get, and then some.

Just so we're clear. :D

[logroller]

I'm not deriding his right to vote.

I'm deriding the childishness and stupidity of his choice.

When you vote in a way that puts Obama and the leftist fanatics back into office, you deserve all the deriding you get, and then some.

Just so we're clear. :D
Crystal...that's despicable.:cool:

[ConHog]

I'm not deriding his right to vote.

I'm deriding the childishness and stupidity of his choice.

When you vote in a way that puts Obama and the leftist fanatics back into office, you deserve all the deriding you get, and then some.

Just so we're clear. :D

Do you also plan to stand outside your local polling place with a billy club to instruct people on not voting stupidly?

[Little-Acorn]

It IS constitutional right now, but I can see a repeal of the 'tax' easily at one point,

Yep... and that brings up another interesting point that was established today.

Obamacare has now been firmly established to be a TAX. Not a "penalty", and not a "Mandate". Says so right in the Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court.

And as a TAX, it is a Budget Item.

And if you are worried about Republicans getting a majority in the Senate but not having the 60% needed to invoke cloture on a Dem-minority filibuster... Remember that the Reconciliation Process can be used to vote on Budget Items, which Obamacare now is. And a Reconciliation Process is NOT SUBJECT TO A FILIBUSTER.

So if we get a Republican president, and even a slim 51% majority in the Senate.... Obamacare is TOAST on January 21, 2013. Repealed. Gone. An unperson.

Is it November yet?

[Little-Acorn]

Do you also plan to stand outside your local polling place with a billy club to instruct people on not voting stupidly?

Do I look like a New Black Panthers member to you?

Does this forum look like a polling place to you?

Does today's calendar say November 5 to you?


I believe that takes care of this line of inquiry.

Although with ConHog, you never know....

[Little-Acorn]

that's despicable.:cool:

Only to the people who don't like having the unpleasant truth pointed out to them. And the simps who for some reason feel sorry for them.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Would you have such a foul mouth when not protected by the anonymity of the internet?

What are you, a parrot?
I asked first you sold out bumpkin.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Do I look like a New Black Panthers member to you?

Does this forum look like a polling place to you?

Does today's calendar say November 5 to you?


I believe that takes care of this line of inquiry.

Although with ConHog, you never know....

Guy is a flaming liberal apologist. He only plays at being with you guys so he can spout defense for liberal insane actions and causes. -Tyr

[ConHog]

Do I look like a New Black Panthers member to you?

Does this forum look like a polling place to you?

Does today's calendar say November 5 to you?


I believe that takes care of this line of inquiry.

Although with ConHog, you never know....

So you only try to bully people into voting the way you want them to online? I'm just trying to understand here. Telling someone that vothing the way they want to is dumb is about as un American as anything I can think of.

[revelarts]

Since when would voting 3rd party contribute anything to getting us a "real President and Congress"?
Continuing to vote for the "available alternative" will NEVER do it either so what your point Acorn?

It will simply help put Obama back in office.
Obama 6 or Romney 5.5

During the primary is when you should have voted 3rd party. I did.
I voted Ron Paul, no need for 3rd party at that point.

Now that the General Election is coming, your choices have significantly narrowed. The fact that you don't like it, doesn't change the fact.
Yes they have

Are you going to vote for the best available alternative? Or just start squalling, and take your ball and go home to mommy?
The best available alternative is not in the 2 main parities so Yes I'll take my vote where ever i need to. Your characterization of 3rd party voting is what helps keep the lame 2 choice system going.







You have the right to vote for whoever you want. But if you think, honestly, that voting for a 3rd party candidate will actually change the present state of our union.
If enough people are truly as feed up as i am yes it will.
You can waste your vote if you like.
It's wasted on the 2 main candidates. And why should anyone vote for witch brand of BS to live under?
So tell us now. What 3rd party candidate is eligible to win, and sworn to follow both the constitution, and the wishes of the Entire Population of America?
That's a good question, will Romney?

Seems to me. Everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 were convinced, like you are now.
Um I didn't believe Obama, and didn't vote for him.
That he would abide by, and follow the constitution, and the wishes of the People who supported him. And we all know how that turned out.
Two wrongs STILL...do not make a right.
and voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil.


I'm not deriding his right to vote.

I'm deriding the childishness and stupidity of his choice.

When you vote in a way that puts Obama and the leftist fanatics back into office, you deserve all the deriding you get, and then some.

Just so we're clear. :D

If you're voting for Romney thinking he's going to make the country less socialist/fascist than Obama's crew your the one making a stupid choice.

And BTW if i was an emotional voter, swayed by pleasant conversation you guys would have probably just NAILED an extra vote for Obama with your response to my posts this thread. Is that how you guys plan to win republican votes from emotional democrats and wishy washy independents. Way to lure in the votes fellas. No facts offered, no "here's better way"... no, just attack the potential swing voter, crazy.

[logroller]

Only to the people who don't like having the unpleasant truth pointed out to them. And the simps who for some reason feel sorry for them.
The only thing that's unpleasant is the arrogance by which you pronounce 'truth'. You need to learn to accept you aren't always right, and others have a right to vote their choosing. You may not like it, even continue to disagree, but insulting a person, a citizen just like you and I, for voting their conscience... Despicable.

[ConHog]

The only thing that's unpleasant is the arrogance by which you pronounce 'truth'. You need to learn to accept you aren't always right, and others have a right to vote their choosing. You may not like it, even continue to disagree, but insulting a person, a citizen just like you and I, for voting their conscience... Despicable.

Yep, just as bad as calling someone names for disagreeing with them politically.

PATHETIC.

[revelarts]

Log
Acorn is pretty much a party hack, claims he wants the Constitution and freedom until it's against party policy, no use talking to him. And he'll just stop talking to you if you ask him to justify his double standards.

[Missileman]

New taxes coming soon:

The "Don't own a Chevy Volt" tax

The "Didn't buy 5 pounds of brocolli a week" tax

The "Don't have a gym membership" tax

The "Didn't vote for a Democrat" tax

[logroller]

New taxes coming soon:

The "Don't own a Chevy Volt" tax

The "Didn't buy 5 pounds of brocolli a week" tax

The "Don't have a gym membership" tax

The "Didn't vote for a Democrat" tax
I could argue we already have two of those.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

new taxes coming soon:

The "don't own a chevy volt" tax

the "didn't buy 5 pounds of brocolli a week" tax

the "don't have a gym membership" tax

the "didn't vote for a democrat" tax


the 500 buck a gun tax
the 100 dollar a bullet tax
the failed to get out of the way to let the dead vote dem tax...;)

[OCA]

If the senate and House doesn't stay/turn republican or independents Repeal with never get done. No matter what Romney and house republicans SAY they'll do.
it's will all be just a show if they don't have the basic numbers.


<tbody>



Current Party Numbers: 112th Congress, 2nd Session





House

Senate



Democrats

191

51



Independents

0

2



Republicans

242

47



Vacancies

2



</tbody>


Yeah, the Repub leader malaka in the House said something assinine earlier today about setting a vote two days after they come back from recess...go ahead malaka, vote, it will never get repealed as long as Dems control the Senate and thats not likely to change in Nov.

[OCA]

Truth is. I...Me, would make a better president than Obama, or Romney. But I am unable to run, can't afford to run, and I wouldn't last past the first day in office as president. I'm too honest to be anywhere near Washington DC for any reason.

Having said that. Since I cannot be the new person in the White House. I have watched Obama destroy the Office, disobey his Oath of office, disobey our Constitution, and intentionally Divide this nation based on nothing less than pure Racist Idea's, and Socialist principles designed to Destroy America.
On the other hand. I took the same Oath more than 5 times during my naval Career, and when I retired in 1995. That OATH did NOT retire.
THAT is why I want Obama replaced with anyone who doesn't spell their name OBAMA.

Can you point to some instances where he has willfully disobeyed the oath of office, the constitution and intentionally divided the nation on racist ideas and socialist principles?

I'm looking for specifics, not just your empty rhetoric.

My Marine brother says the Navy was good....for when the Corps needed a ride.

[OCA]

Romney turns my stomach, Obama turns my stomach.
I still may vote 3rd party, a real president and congress would follow the constitution and follow the people. Until then mr. P's Avatar is right on target.

Both are total losers...3rd party is the only thing that will even have a small chance of saving America.

[OCA]

Since when would voting 3rd party contribute anything to getting us a "real President and Congress"?

It will simply help put Obama back in office.

During the primary is when you should have voted 3rd party. I did.

Now that the General Election is coming, your choices have significantly narrowed. The fact that you don't like it, doesn't change the fact.

Are you going to vote for the best available alternative? Or just start squalling, and take your ball and go home to mommy?

Voting for the best available alternative has gotten us into the mess we are in now.

There will be 3rd party candidates on the ballot in Nov.

[OCA]

You have the right to vote for whoever you want. But if you think, honestly, that voting for a 3rd party candidate will actually change the present state of our union. You can waste your vote if you like.
So tell us now. What 3rd party candidate is eligible to win, and sworn to follow both the constitution, and the wishes of the Entire Population of America?

Seems to me. Everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 were convinced, like you are now. That he would abide by, and follow the constitution, and the wishes of the People who supported him.
And we all know how that turned out.
Two wrongs STILL...do not make a right.


http://www.constitutionparty.com/

[OCA]

Only to the people who don't like having the unpleasant truth pointed out to them. And the simps who for some reason feel sorry for them.

Since when are you the keeper of the almighty truth?

[AFbombloader]

Maybe this has already been addressed, and I apologize if it has (been about 4 years since I have been on here), doesn't this being classified as a tax allow a simple majority of the senate to overturn the tax? Or is the case not truly a tax because they say it isn't, kinda like social security.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Maybe this has already been addressed, and I apologize if it has (been about 4 years since I have been on here), doesn't this being classified as a tax allow a simple majority of the senate to overturn the tax? Or is the case not truly a tax because they say it isn't, kinda like social security.

It was voted into law as -not a tax!
SCOTUS upheld it as tax!
SCOTUS then did not void it but rather lit a match to the Constitution instead.
Now our government has been told that it can legally force us to buy any damn thing from shit to shinola!
Sad day for America and Roberts should someday be judged on his treason! I only pray that Im alive to see the punishment when its delivered !-Tyr

[ConHog]

Maybe this has already been addressed, and I apologize if it has (been about 4 years since I have been on here), doesn't this being classified as a tax allow a simple majority of the senate to overturn the tax? Or is the case not truly a tax because they say it isn't, kinda like social security.

much like any other government program, this one can be removed via Congressional vote. SCOTUS ruled that it is constitutional, they did nt, and indeed don't even have the power to do so, rule that this forever the law.

[OCA]

much like any other government program, this one can be removed via Congressional vote. SCOTUS ruled that it is constitutional, they did nt, and indeed don't even have the power to do so, rule that this forever the law.

I love how the Rtwing nutjobs are now saying that Roberts might have been playing politics with this and trying to backhand Demos...................LMFAO! They will stop at nothing to look for excuses.

[ConHog]

I love how the Rtwing nutjobs are now saying that Roberts might have been playing politics with this and trying to backhand Demos...................LMFAO! They will stop at nothing to look for excuses.

Meh, in my opinion the Court made the wrong ruling, but it's not treason and its not Obama out to be King LOL

[OCA]

Meh, in my opinion the Court made the wrong ruling, but it's not treason and its not Obama out to be King LOL

Its just politics as usual, i'll probably blow a gasket if and when Cali. prop 8 gets to SCOTUS and if its found unconstitutional.

Conservatives have had their collective asses handed to them this past week or so, they are lashing out.

[ConHog]

Its just politics as usual, i'll probably blow a gasket if and when Cali. prop 8 gets to SCOTUS and if its found unconstitutional.

Conservatives have had their collective asses handed to them this past week or so, they are lashing out.

I'm sorry but calling people you disagree with traitors, wanting to kill them, telling others they are stupid for voting the way the want to, and claiming that a sitting US President plans to cancel elections is NOT politics as usual. It's outright stupidity.

[OCA]

I'm sorry but calling people you disagree with traitors, wanting to kill them, telling others they are stupid for voting the way the want to, and claiming that a sitting US President plans to cancel elections is NOT politics as usual. It's outright stupidity.

Oh no that shit is reason enough to call the guys in the white coats but during Bush's terms he was called Hitler etc. etc. etc..........he wasn't smart enough to be Hitler.

[ConHog]

Oh no that shit is reason enough to call the guys in the white coats but during Bush's terms he was called Hitler etc. etc. etc..........he wasn't smart enough to be Hitler.


Same same, comparing Bush , or any other US pol, to some asshole like Hitler is ridiculous.

oh, let me add another, making fun of a guy's wife and or children over political difference. Childish and stupid.

[Missileman]

Yeah, the Repub leader malaka in the House said something assinine earlier today about setting a vote two days after they come back from recess...go ahead malaka, vote, it will never get repealed as long as Dems control the Senate and thats not likely to change in Nov.

I think the SCOTUS upholding the mandate is going to highly motivate the 60% of voters who want the mandate gone. Every GoPer can run on repeal and IMO, the dems are gonna get waxed in Nov.

[aboutime]

I think the SCOTUS upholding the mandate is going to highly motivate the 60% of voters who want the mandate gone. Every GoPer can run on repeal and IMO, the dems are gonna get waxed in Nov.


Totally agree Missileman. I do believe the Dems, and Obama-the-no-job-for-him are convinced they managed to FOOL the entire Nation today.

Obama just lost his biggest Bragging, and Selling point for the election.
Remember. He bragged so much about his ACCOMPLISHMENT...not PLURAL.
And in his mind. His only accomplishment was as Nancy Pelosi said...."We'll know what's in it, after we vote for it."

The Dems will be More than WAXED in November.
They'll all be running to the DNC swimming pool, where they will have a massive Suicide in KOOL-AID party on November 7th.
Jim Jones would be proud of them.

[Kathianne]

I think the SCOTUS upholding the mandate is going to highly motivate the 60% of voters who want the mandate gone. Every GoPer can run on repeal and IMO, the dems are gonna get waxed in Nov.

"Repeal & Replace" should be one of the standard lines.

[avatar4321]

I read the decision. I dont get it. Roberts completely reversed himself in justifying the mandate as a tax despite arguing against the anti-injunction act reasoning he used earlier saying it wasnt a tax. It made no sense.

If this doesnt get repealed soon, lots of people are going to die early because of this legislation.

Im convinced more tonight than ever before that we need to do what our Founders did and Put Firm Reliance in Divine Providence in order to Restore the Republic.

Im going to be looking to repent of my sins and turn to God more than I have been. That's the only way we get through this.

[avatar4321]

"Repeal & Replace" should be one of the standard lines.

Why do we need to replace it? Why dont we just get government completely out of our healthcare?

I dont get why we are supposed to let the government run what we do with our bodies when it comes to health but hey saving an unborn baby is just offlimits.

[red states rule]

70' at B.J's...saw it the other day, like 3500 g, its huge, who the hell needs that big a TV?

Perhaps someone who wants to buy one

[red states rule]

I dare you to find 1 doctor who will not treat emergency or urgent care cases because of
"ability to pay", they do it for fear of lawsuit and then when payment is not made the repercussions of non-payment are handed down until they reach...VOILA! the premium payer, you and I.

Doesn't matter now though, we will ALL be insured.

ALL will be insured? Most people will wait unti they are sick, then "buy" the ins. Of course the cost will soar for everyone

Then we have employers who will run the numbers and see they will save money by no longer offering medical coverage to the workers, and the workers then get dumped into a government plan

Then we have illegals getting coverage at the expense of US taxpayers

Finally the cost of Obmacare keeps soaring. The CBO reported the cost we were told has doubled - and keep the boks open

[red states rule]

Both are total losers...3rd party is the only thing that will even have a small chance of saving America.

This from the political expert who bellowed how Hillary Clinton would be the next President

[red states rule]

Yeah, the Repub leader malaka in the House said something assinine earlier today about setting a vote two days after they come back from recess...go ahead malaka, vote, it will never get repealed as long as Dems control the Senate and thats not likely to change in Nov.

OK class, US Constitution 101 is now in session

Since the USSC has ruled that Obamacare is now a tax bill, only 51 votes are needed in the Senate to repeal

Which means R's would need 50 seats (which is possible in this election cycle) and the VP would break any tie votes

Also, since this is now a tax bill, the US Constitution states that all tax bills must originate in the House. Obamacare first passed the Senate which would make the entire law unconstitutional

Finally, to speed up the process, Pres Mitt could repeal Obamacare vie Executive Order on Day One.

As one lib said "Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Cool"

[Kathianne]

Why do we need to replace it? Why dont we just get government completely out of our healthcare?

I dont get why we are supposed to let the government run what we do with our bodies when it comes to health but hey saving an unborn baby is just offlimits.

If it were up to me, there'd be no 'health care insurance' in present form. Major medical only.

[revelarts]

OK class, US Constitution 101 is now in session

Since the USSC has ruled that Obamacare is now a tax bill, only 51 votes are needed in the Senate to repeal Are you sure that's its a striat majority vote here, I thik you may be right but i'm not sure. And I'm not sure all R's would be on board, there are still plenty of Rhino's out there.



Which means R's would need 50 seats (which is possible in this election cycle) and the VP would break any tie votes Ok good one



Also, since this is now a tax bill, the US Constitution states that all tax bills must originate in the House. Obamacare first passed the Senate which would make the entire law unconstitutional That's an very interesting point, I wonder if anyone would have the heart to push it, and if it would stick.



Finally, to speed up the process, Pres Mitt could repeal Obamacare vie Executive Order on Day One.
But that would be unconstitutional as well. the President should Not do that . That's worst than a line item veto. He doesn't have the authority there.

[taft2012]

That defies all logic. When a product is sold by bulk the costs per item go down. .


No, it makes perfect sense. Imagine if your car insurance company was mandated to provide coverage to every horrible driver who applied to them, including people who get into accidents with alarming frequency.


That's what Obamacare is doing to the health insurance companies.

[OCA]

If this doesnt get repealed soon, lots of people are going to die early because of this legislation.




WOO WOOO.....this way to the empty rhetoric train!

[jimnyc]

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Not bad at all, I agree with much of your parties positions. Funny that someone like you would support the following, but it's cool with me!




Immigration: Illegal immigration must stop. Our borders must be secure. In Congress, I supported and cosponsored legislation to stop illegal aliens, terrorists, drug smugglers, and other criminals from coming across our Southern border. We need to utilize troops, fences, and other measures to stop the invasion from Mexico. I was the first to sponsor legislation providing for a fence along the Southern Border. We must continue to fight for funding and for adequacy of the fence.

Illegal immigration costs the United States taxpayers billions every year through increased health care costs, social service utilization, emergency room fees,
prison expenses, and in other areas. For example, of the 189,000 federal prisoners, 50,000 are illegal or recent aliens costing the taxpayers millions
of dollars for their incarceration.
We must end the anchor baby situation, whereby a child of illegal aliens is an automatic citizen of the United States.




Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants: I oppose granting amnesty for those persons who come into the United States illegally. Amnesty did not work in the 1980s. Amnesty did not work in the 1990s, and it will not solve the problem now. Amnesty only encourages more illegal entry into the United States. Legal immigration must be reduced not increased. Congress, the United States Senate, and the President need to adopt a position of a strong NO to amnesty. As President, I would immediately direct the Attorney General to support and NOT oppose the efforts of Arizona, Alabama and others to deal with the illegal problem in the states.





English as the Official Language: I continue to support English as the official language of the United States of America.

[OCA]

Not bad at all, I agree with much of your parties positions. Funny that someone like you would support the following, but it's cool with me!




Immigration: Illegal immigration must stop. Our borders must be secure. In Congress, I supported and cosponsored legislation to stop illegal aliens, terrorists, drug smugglers, and other criminals from coming across our Southern border. We need to utilize troops, fences, and other measures to stop the invasion from Mexico. I was the first to sponsor legislation providing for a fence along the Southern Border. We must continue to fight for funding and for adequacy of the fence.

Illegal immigration costs the United States taxpayers billions every year through increased health care costs, social service utilization, emergency room fees,
prison expenses, and in other areas. For example, of the 189,000 federal prisoners, 50,000 are illegal or recent aliens costing the taxpayers millions
of dollars for their incarceration.
We must end the anchor baby situation, whereby a child of illegal aliens is an automatic citizen of the United States.




Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants: I oppose granting amnesty for those persons who come into the United States illegally. Amnesty did not work in the 1980s. Amnesty did not work in the 1990s, and it will not solve the problem now. Amnesty only encourages more illegal entry into the United States. Legal immigration must be reduced not increased. Congress, the United States Senate, and the President need to adopt a position of a strong NO to amnesty. As President, I would immediately direct the Attorney General to support and NOT oppose the efforts of Arizona, Alabama and others to deal with the illegal problem in the states.





English as the Official Language: I continue to support English as the official language of the United States of America.




Because you like a candidate or party does not mean that you will support 100% of a platform............well unless you are a hack.

[jimnyc]

Because you like a candidate or party does not mean that you will support 100% of a platform............well unless you are a hack.

Based on your posting here in the past few years, you have spoken out AGAINST the majority of what this candidate has expressed on his platform!

[OCA]

Based on your posting here in the past few years, you have spoken out AGAINST the majority of what this candidate has expressed on his platform!

Lesser of ALL evils...........isn't that what the majority here use when they say they continue to vote Repub.?

[DragonStryk72]

Why do you assume Romney will be a "real president"? Because he is a Repub? :laugh2:
:laugh2:

Pssst...hint hint....it won't be any better under a Repub, two peas in the same pod.

Maybe he will ship some more jobs overseas.

No, because he won't spend the first two years of his term doing fucking nothing, then craft a peice of shit legislation that's going to hardcore fuck over the working poor. Well fuck all those people for wanting to earn a living.

[jimnyc]

Lesser of ALL evils...........isn't that what the majority here use when they say they continue to vote Repub.?

Nope, most will pick a candidate that most closely fits their own ideals and beliefs, especially so in the primaries. What you're saying would be the equivalent of me voting for Ron Paul, even though I disagree with 90% of his platform. No one here supports a (R) candidate AND disagrees with 90% of the platform.

[OCA]

Nope, most will pick a candidate that most closely fits their own ideals and beliefs, especially so in the primaries. What you're saying would be the equivalent of me voting for Ron Paul, even though I disagree with 90% of his platform. No one here supports a (R) candidate AND disagrees with 90% of the platform.

Would you like me to go and find statements saying "lesser of two evils"?

[OCA]

No, because he won't spend the first two years of his term doing fucking nothing, then craft a peice of shit legislation that's going to hardcore fuck over the working poor. Well fuck all those people for wanting to earn a living.

How do you know that?

Maybe he won't ship jobs overseas, I mean he did it before but maybe not now...not sure.

Funny, I don't feel fucked.

[jimnyc]

Would you like me to go and find statements saying "lesser of two evils"?

And the lesser they speak of still stands for much of their beliefs, not just 10% or so, and isn't preaching a ton of shit that they spoke against for so long.

[OCA]

And the lesser they speak of still stands for much of their beliefs, not just 10% or so, and isn't preaching a ton of shit that they spoke against for so long.

You sure I don't believe in 90% of the platform because you just cherry picked the immigration?

[jimnyc]

You sure I don't believe in 90% of the platform because you just cherry picked the immigration?

Nope, the healthcare you are championing right now - they want repealed.

Let me put it this way. If I had a candidate that was FOR amnesty and sympathized with illegals AND was FOR this Obamacare crap - that alone would be enough for me to steer FAR clear of them.

[DragonStryk72]

How do you know that?

Maybe he won't ship jobs overseas, I mean he did it before but maybe not now...not sure.

Funny, I don't feel fucked.

No, but my mom is. She really deserved it too, cause how dare she be working poor [/sarcasm].

You know, somehow, I just don't see romney putting up anywhere near the amount of job loss Obama posted.

[OCA]

Nope, the healthcare you are championing right now - they want repealed.

Let me put it this way. If I had a candidate that was FOR amnesty and sympathized with illegals AND was FOR this Obamacare crap - that alone would be enough for me to steer FAR clear of them.

They are wrong, it happens.

The point is they are 3rd party and truely not Washington insiders, whatever their positional disagreements are with me they will still get my vote simply because its time for a 3rd party to be given a chance at the plate, hell even a libertarian candidate could get my vote. I'm not willing to be an active participant in the destruction of the country and that is exactly what you are getting with Demo. and Repub.

Now with that said i'm not talking crazy 3rd parties like Commies or the Green party.

[jimnyc]

Are you sure that's its a striat majority vote here, I thik you may be right but i'm not sure. And I'm not sure all R's would be on board, there are still plenty of Rhino's out there.

Just as an Fyi:


The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of key provisions in the Affordable Care Act, the health care law commonly known as Obamacare, on Thursday, but on Capitol Hill, Republicans are vowing to press on with plans to fully repeal the law.

Repealing the law won't happen before January 2013. It would be dependent on a triple Republican victory this November: Mitt Romney would need to defeat President Barack Obama, Republicans must hold their majority in the House, and they must also gain enough seats in the Senate so they have at least 50 of their own in the upper chamber.

What about the filibuster? Don't you need 60 votes to do anything in the Senate?

Not in this case. Because Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion ruled the individual mandate a "tax," a Republican-led Senate could repeal that provision--and others--using what is called "budget reconciliation," a procedural tactic that requires only a simple majority vote. The Republican vice president, in this hypothetical scenario, would break the tie. (Democrats used the same method in 2010 to pass the health care bill.)

Budget reconciliation is at least one option that Senate Republicans are considering.

"There are a lot of ways to protect the American people from this horrible law, and Republicans are looking at all of them," John Ashbrook, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, told Yahoo News when asked if the party's congressional leadership was open to repeal using that process.


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/could-republicans-really-repeal-obamacare-091546012.html

[KarlMarx]

I believe the ruling will prove to be a huge victory for Republicans. This will galvanize their campaign to defeat Obama in November. Because the only way to challenge and overturn the ruling is to win the White House.

Believe it or not, I have always been against Obamacare. I believe individuals should be able to decide for themselves. Under insured people like my sister and her husband will be unduly financially burdened if the full ruling is put into effect.
Personally, I actually benefit from Obamacare. My son is disabled and the mandate to require employers to allow coverage of employees' children up to the age of 26 helps me. However, I don't believe that Obamacare is a good thing and want to see it repealed. Why?

Because it will mean a tax on all of us. Obamacare will have to be paid for, and taxing us and businesses is how it's going to be paid for, at least in part.

Because prices will rise as business passes its extra cost onto the consumer

Because many small businesses, the backbone of the American economy, will now be required to provide healthcare to their employees and that will mean that people will not be hired by those businesses or let go.

Because jobs will be moving overseas to countries that do not require healthcare coverage... perhaps we ought to learn Hindi, Bengali, or Mandarin Chinese.

With all of that being said, something must be done about the high cost of health insurance in this country. I don't think anyone is in disagreement about that.

1. Tort reform is needed. People should be able to retain their right to sue negligent physicians when needed, but lawyers should not be the ones to benefit from that litigation, the patient should be. Right now, it's open season on physicians. That helps to drive up costs
2. Health Saving Accounts should be available to everyone. Like a 401k, one should be able to set aside on a tax free basis a part of their income for health care. This will help the consumer purchase cheaper health insurance (like for major medical only)
3. Allow consumers to buy insurance across state lines. Regulating the insurance companies only represses competition and drives up costs
4. Insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust legislation.. that should not be the case. Breaking up insurance companies that are preventing competition will help competition. Look at what happened with AT&T.

[jimnyc]

They are wrong, it happens.

The point is they are 3rd party and truely not Washington insiders, whatever their positional disagreements are with me they will still get my vote simply because its time for a 3rd party to be given a chance at the plate, hell even a libertarian candidate could get my vote. I'm not willing to be an active participant in the destruction of the country and that is exactly what you are getting with Demo. and Repub.

Now with that said i'm not talking crazy 3rd parties like Commies or the Green party.

Hey, I'm all for a 3rd or even 4th party to give people more choices. I'm not glued to the (R) side. But IF I'm going to go with another party, or another candidate, they had better have a platform that aligns with the things that I am passionate about. Voting for someone strictly because they are a different party, without conscience, is no different than voting for (D) or (R) without conscience.

[OCA]

No, but my mom is. She really deserved it too, cause how dare she be working poor [/sarcasm].

You know, somehow, I just don't see romney putting up anywhere near the amount of job loss Obama posted.

She will get affordable healthcare with this legislation.

[taft2012]

Personally, I actually benefit from Obamacare. My son is disabled and the mandate to require employers to allow coverage of employees' children up to the age of 26 helps me. .

If your son is truly disabled Obamacare shouldn't impact you at all. He's eligible for a host of gov't benefits; SSI, Medicaid, visiting nurses, etc.

[CSM]

I marvel at a country which requires its citizens to prove they have health insurance but not that they are citizens when they vote.

[OCA]

Hey, I'm all for a 3rd or even 4th party to give people more choices. I'm not glued to the (R) side. But IF I'm going to go with another party, or another candidate, they had better have a platform that aligns with the things that I am passionate about. Voting for someone strictly because they are a different party, without conscience, is no different than voting for (D) or (R) without conscience.

Ok let me bring up their platform....lets check it out.

Sanctity of life....check.
Character and moral conduct.......check
Congressional reform.........check
Conscription..........check
Constitutional convention............check
Copyrights and patents....check
Cost of big government........check(with special circumstances)
Crime.............check
Defense...............check
Drug Abuse...........check
Education..............check
Election reform....................check
Electoral college.........unsure
Energy.....check
Environment....check
Family............check
Foriegn policy.....check
Gun control...............check
Judiciary....check
Money and banking.............check
Personal and private property security....check
Religious freedom.............check
Social security..............check
State sovereignty...check(with special circumstances)
Tarriffs and trade................check
Taxes.......check
Terrorism and personal liberty.....check
Veterans.............check
Wage and price control.................check
Welfare................check

So you see its well over the "10%" you've been claiming.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No, because he won't spend the first two years of his term doing fucking nothing, then craft a peice of shit legislation that's going to hardcore fuck over the working poor. Well fuck all those people for wanting to earn a living.

Obama does whatever he can to destroy the middleclass and hurt the producers! Almost everything the guy does is anti-American in nature and results. The scum destroys the nation and gets bravos for doing so by the blind bots and usual dem idiots.
Obama is a leftist that favors Islam. As such he hates this country. -Tyr

[jimnyc]

Maybe this has already been addressed, and I apologize if it has (been about 4 years since I have been on here), doesn't this being classified as a tax allow a simple majority of the senate to overturn the tax? Or is the case not truly a tax because they say it isn't, kinda like social security.

Welcome back! :salute:

[CockySOB]

I read the decision. I dont get it. Roberts completely reversed himself in justifying the mandate as a tax despite arguing against the anti-injunction act reasoning he used earlier saying it wasnt a tax. It made no sense.

If this doesnt get repealed soon, lots of people are going to die early because of this legislation.

Im convinced more tonight than ever before that we need to do what our Founders did and Put Firm Reliance in Divine Providence in order to Restore the Republic.

Im going to be looking to repent of my sins and turn to God more than I have been. That's the only way we get through this.

I'm not happy with the decision either, but it could've been much, much worse. We have confirmed constraints on Congressional authority via the Commerce and Necessary & Proper Clauses, and that's a good thing. We have precedent now which supports Congressional taxing authority via the Taxing Clause, but again with limits.

By treating the penalty as a tax, it does become a budget item and subject to the budget reconciliation process for the Senate, meaning it cannot be filibustered and only requires a simple majority to pass changes on the individual mandate portion of the PPACA. With the ruling that the mandate is not a tax with regards the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, the mandate is open to immediate challenge to both the assessment of the penalty-which-is-not-a-tax and the collection thereof. Normally, you could not challenge a tax assessment or collection until after such assessment has been made, or collection efforts on that assessed tax begun. The Chief Justice seems to have weakened the potency of the mandate by making it more vulnerable to immediate legal challenges and by (seemingly) giving every taxpayer potentially affected legal standing to bring suit.

Why didn't the Chief Justice simply rule with the conservative group to toss out the entire act? Who knows. I'd like to think he was sincere in his statement that it is not the job of SCOTUS to protect people from the effects of their political choices, when they can vote their leaders out of office and change the laws via Congress. This does place the onus on the voting public to decide if the policies the leaders they elect are good or bad, and to own up to their electing leaders who create bad (or horrific) policy.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm not happy with the decision either, but it could've been much, much worse. We have confirmed constraints on Congressional authority via the Commerce and Necessary & Proper Clauses, and that's a good thing. We have precedent now which supports Congressional taxing authority via the Taxing Clause, but again with limits.

By treating the penalty as a tax, it does become a budget item and subject to the budget reconciliation process for the Senate, meaning it cannot be filibustered and only requires a simple majority to pass changes on the individual mandate portion of the PPACA. With the ruling that the mandate is not a tax with regards the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, the mandate is open to immediate challenge to both the assessment of the penalty-which-is-not-a-tax and the collection thereof. Normally, you could not challenge a tax assessment or collection until after such assessment has been made, or collection efforts on that assessed tax begun. The Chief Justice seems to have weakened the potency of the mandate by making it more vulnerable to immediate legal challenges and by (seemingly) giving every taxpayer potentially affected legal standing to bring suit.

Why didn't the Chief Justice simply rule with the conservative group to toss out the entire act? Who knows. I'd like to think he was sincere in his statement that it is not the job of SCOTUS to protect people from the effects of their political choices, when they can vote their leaders out of office and change the laws via Congress. This does place the onus on the voting public to decide if the policies the leaders they elect are good or bad, and to own up to their electing leaders who create bad (or horrific) policy.

ffingbullshit, he wasnt sincere in shit! His ruling , he was the tie breaker because Kagan refused to recuse herself which should be noted as corruption. Roberts gave the government the go ahead to push its insane socialist agenda , the authority to tax ANYTHING DAMN THING, FOR ANY REASON OR EVEN NO REASON. HE LIT A MATCH TO OUR CONSTITUTION, THUS HE IS A GODDAMN LYING FUKKING TRAITOR.
He should be charged ,arrested, when found guilty shot for treason! As should the others that voted with him..
His justification for the vote contradicts itself and is laughable in its dumbfkkery, ask Justice Scalia .. Roberts either sold out or was forced to comply by some means. Obama's paid shill Kagan likely delivered the message(threat). By the way where is the heat on her for refusing to recuse herself? corrupt fed, corrupt SCOTUS. -Tyr

[OCA]

ffingbullshit, he wasnt sincere in shit! His ruling , he was the tie breaker because Kagan refused to recuse herself which should be noted as corruption. Roberts gave the government the go ahead to push its insane socialist agenda , the authority to tax ANYTHING DAMN THING, FOR ANY REASON OR EVEN NO REASON. HE LIT A MATCH TO OUR CONSTITUTION, THUS HE IS A GODDAMN LYING FUKKING TRAITOR.
He should be charged ,arrested, when found guilty shot for treason! As should the others that voted with him..
His justification for the vote contradicts itself and is laughable in its dumbfkkery, ask Justice Scalia .. Roberts either sold out or was forced to comply by some means. Obama's paid shill Kagan likely delivered the message(threat). By the way where is the heat on her for refusing to recuse herself? corrupt fed, corrupt SCOTUS. -Tyr

Tyr i'll tell you what.....if nothing else you bring laughter to my face.

[ConHog]

Why should Kagan have recused herself? What treason? I'm confused.

[jimnyc]

Con - He's got you on ignore, no point in trying to engage him when you know that's the case, especially knowing every communication between the 2 of you ends up ruining threads. I've asked the same of him and he agreed, and now I'm reminding you, please ignore one another.

[ConHog]

Con - He's got you on ignore, no point in trying to engage him when you know that's the case, especially knowing every communication between the 2 of you ends up ruining threads. I've asked the same of him and he agreed, and now I'm reminding you, please ignore one another.

I wasn't asking him directly, nor is he the only one claiming it is treasonous to have voted for Obamacare, nor is he the only one stating that Kagan should have recused herself.

Those are legitimate questions Jim and in fact I wouldn't care to see his answers even if he cared to answer. If YOU however want to give an opinion , I'd love to hear.

[jimnyc]

I wasn't asking him directly, nor is he the only one claiming it is treasonous to have voted for Obamacare, nor is he the only one stating that Kagan should have recused herself.

Those are legitimate questions Jim and in fact I wouldn't care to see his answers even if he cared to answer. If YOU however want to give an opinion , I'd love to hear.

My bad then, I didn't see others in this thread bring up the Kagan recusal thing, especially 2 posts prior to your response. Anyway, while I admit it's a legit question to others, my point still stands, you 2 are ignoring one another now, whether actually on your list or not.

[jimnyc]

And a quick search shows no one else has brought up Kagan and recusal since this announcement.

[ConHog]

My bad then, I didn't see others in this thread bring up the Kagan recusal thing, especially 2 posts prior to your response. Anyway, while I admit it's a legit question to others, my point still stands, you 2 are ignoring one another now, whether actually on your list or not.

and your point is understood. I don't see his posts. I DO however see OTHERS calling Roberts treasonous (and to be perfectly fair this isn't the first time people who have disagreed with a Supreme have called him a traitor.

[jimnyc]

Why should Kagan have recused herself? What treason? I'm confused.


and your point is understood. I don't see his posts. I DO however see OTHERS calling Roberts treasonous (and to be perfectly fair this isn't the first time people who have disagreed with a Supreme have called him a traitor.

You do see his posts, or you wouldn't have asked a question about Kagan, who no one other than Tyr has brought up. What I'm asking, is that when you do see a post from him, don't reply. And don't reply without quoting as if we don't know who your post is directed towards.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr i'll tell you what.....if nothing else you bring laughter to my face.

My supreme goal in life amigo..You made my day.;)
Despite the obvious anger in my post my points about corruption are valid. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And a quick search shows no one else has brought up Kagan and recusal since this announcement.

As far as I can tell, I'm the lone voice in the wilderness about Kagan's refusal to recuse herself. Amazing that its been ignored so resolutely both here and in the real world too! I havent read anybody else calling Roberts a traitor but myself nor condemning Kagan's refusal to recuse.-Tyr

[jimnyc]

As far as I can tell, I'm the lone voice in the wilderness about Kagan's refusal to recuse herself. Amazing that its been ignored so resolutely both here and in the real world too! I havent read anybody else calling Roberts a traitor but myself nor condemning Kagan's refusal to recuse.-Tyr

There was a lot of discussion about it in the MSM when she was nominated, as to whether or not she would recuse herself down the line. It was even discussed and a letter sent to Eric Holder for investigation.

Here's a good read about it and the GOP's concerns. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/18/supreme-court-health-care-justice-elena-kagan-recusal_n_1102337.html

It would appear that she has recused herself before on what would have been similar grounds, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment further.

[red state]

I'm gonna try to cover most of the responsed to this thread cuz I don't have much time or ability in participating so I'll do my best to address some good comments/ideas from other posters. This is only my perspective and my comments are in the most respectful way that I know how to express my point of view. I'll start with Karl Marx and the rest can simply assume that they are who they are in respect to my other comments.

Karl, you're not taking full advantage of our honorable health care system...I'm not siding with OCA but he does have his points and I challenge anyone to find a doctor or hospital that has acted dishonorably. I know it happens BUT my knowledge of our system suggests otherwise (as a general rule). Doctors and Hospitals are either afraid to refuse care or are too honorable t refuse care (in most cases). If a hospital or health care professional denies you service....there is ALWAYS someone who will. Besides, most have a policy lined up to where folks can pay $5, $10, $20 and whatever else a month towards their bill. Illegal Border Invaders regularly abuse our healthcare system (STILL THE BEST IN THE WORLD by the way). NO, this TAX is un-constitutional just as paid abortions is unconstitutional. We have too much corruption and this law/tax is corrupt. just as B.O. and withHOLDER are corrupt to the very core. This health care law would be the equivelantcy of a woman being taxed EXTRA for an abortion (which does cause harm to the woman emotionally and physically)...not to mention the murder of a developing human being). We all know the outcry that such a tax would cause the leftist to jump up and down over YET we're fine with this law/tax. What Holder (withHOLDER) has done at our border would be the equivelant of Republicans introducing (secretly) a drug that causes death and/or more harm to women who have abortions just to prove how dangerous abortions really are. Fast and Furious was nothing more than an attack on our God Given 2nd Amendment rights and this un-American / anti-American Health Care TAX is simply another attack (among many) that this corrupt administration has placed on this Nation. I'm still shocked that this this was upheld and I'm just as surprised/disappointed that the AZ law to protect Arizonians from illegal border invasion was overturned. The pieces are certainly coming into place and in plain view as to where this administration is taking us and I'm not surprised in the least that the "executive privileges" and the legalization of millions of illegal aliens have been made "LEGAL" with the stroke of a pen. It may take time in weeding out the Republicans but that is our only hope. Voting 3rd party is a waste of time....I know because I voted for Ross Perot and vowed to NEVER again vote 3rd party (unless Allen West were to run). A REAL conservative with a honorably military record and history as a representative is more than a Ross Perot could have ever brought to the table. Still, Allen would be a wasted vote (unless he was all over the media....and we know that isn't likely unless some dirt, such as how he treated a terrorist, was to surface). Romney is NOT who we need but I'll be forced to vote for him....we simply can't accept more CHANGE....it is killing our nation and stamping out our freedom.


Personally, I actually benefit from Obamacare. My son is disabled and the mandate to require employers to allow coverage of employees' children up to the age of 26 helps me. However, I don't believe that Obamacare is a good thing and want to see it repealed. Why?

Because it will mean a tax on all of us. Obamacare will have to be paid for, and taxing us and businesses is how it's going to be paid for, at least in part.

Because prices will rise as business passes its extra cost onto the consumer

Because many small businesses, the backbone of the American economy, will now be required to provide healthcare to their employees and that will mean that people will not be hired by those businesses or let go.

Because jobs will be moving overseas to countries that do not require healthcare coverage... perhaps we ought to learn Hindi, Bengali, or Mandarin Chinese.

With all of that being said, something must be done about the high cost of health insurance in this country. I don't think anyone is in disagreement about that.

1. Tort reform is needed. People should be able to retain their right to sue negligent physicians when needed, but lawyers should not be the ones to benefit from that litigation, the patient should be. Right now, it's open season on physicians. That helps to drive up costs
2. Health Saving Accounts should be available to everyone. Like a 401k, one should be able to set aside on a tax free basis a part of their income for health care. This will help the consumer purchase cheaper health insurance (like for major medical only)
3. Allow consumers to buy insurance across state lines. Regulating the insurance companies only represses competition and drives up costs
4. Insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust legislation.. that should not be the case. Breaking up insurance companies that are preventing competition will help competition. Look at what happened with AT&T.

[red state]

Tyr, you are correct. Roberts is a traitor to WE THE PEOPLE and a disgrace to his robe. This was very SHADY but I simply didn't have the stomach to mention the obvious or continue to discuss something that is such a disappointment in someone who was appointed by so-called conservatives. He, like the ones who appointed him are not true conservatives.

What is a shame is how liberals can count on LEFT decisions from the leftist judges but we can NEVER rely on "our' appointed judges. I fear that we, as a Nation, have been given the leaders, leadership and decisions that we deserve for turning our back on Him for so long. The hedge has certainly been removed and the lions are moving in for the kill.

Pray people....we're living in dangerous times and I'd prefer that our great nation to have been defeated by a major war of some sort rather than be defeated or go out in such a dishonorable, slow and painful death of disgrace that we are currently accepting. I suppose it is the warrior in me and it is sad that so many TRUE warriors have paid for our freedoms with BLOOD just for us to slowly sink in the mire of socialism from the enemy from within.

[OCA]

My supreme goal in life amigo..You made my day.;)
Despite the obvious anger in my post my points about corruption are valid. -Tyr

I wonder if you bellowed so loudly during the w admin. And the justi e dept. Lawyer firings? Or when the Downing memo was discovered? Or when Valarie Plame was outed by the sith Cheney? My mensa intuition says no.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

There was a lot of discussion about it in the MSM when she was nominated, as to whether or not she would recuse herself down the line. It was even discussed and a letter sent to Eric Holder for investigation.

Here's a good read about it and the GOP's concerns. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/18/supreme-court-health-care-justice-elena-kagan-recusal_n_1102337.html

It would appear that she has recused herself before on what would have been similar grounds, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment further.

Thanks but I do not do huffingpuke, so I'll take your word for it amigo.
So no judicial review by SCOTUS on her refusal to recuse! That points to corruption within the court. She is a lousy shill for obama. No integrity at all. Just another worthless puke that should be charged with treason . Hell, if they were arrested , tried in court , found guilty and sentenced to execution for treason I'd not only volunteer to deliver the penalty but would provide both the weapon and the ammo! Call it my civic duty and sleep like a baby after doing that service for my country. Notice I cited doing so legally and after their having their day in court and being found guilty and legally sentenced! I am indeed a civic minded and generous guy!-;)-Tyr

[OCA]

Thanks but I do not do huffingpuke, so I'll take your word for it amigo.
So no judicial review by SCOTUS on her refusal to recuse! That points to corruption within the court. She is a lousy shill for obama. No integrity at all. Just another worthless puke that should be charged with treason . Hell, if they were arrested , tried in court , found guilty and sentenced to execution for treason I'd not only volunteer to deliver the penalty but would provide both the weapon and the ammo! Call it my civic duty and sleep like a baby after doing that service for my country. Notice I cited doing so legally and after their having their day in court and being found guilty and legally sentenced! I am indeed a civic minded and generous guy!-;)-Tyr

Tyr did you know that bu jist simply saying that you won't even read liberal opinion that you are in fact making yourself the equivalent of Democratic Underground?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I wonder if you bellowed so loudly during the w admin. And the justi e dept. Lawyer firings? Or when the Downing memo was discovered? Or when Valarie Plame was outed by the sith Cheney? My mensa intuition says no.
Your intuition would be wrong as my friends here from our old forum can verify that I called Bush a traitor numerous times on that forum FOR SEVERAL OTHER IMPROPER OATH OF OFFICE BREAKING ACTIONS HE TOOK.
I STATE MY BELIEFS NO MATTER WHICH PARTY OR PERSON THEY CRITICISE OR HARM.
If you use your great Mensa powers(intuition) you may just find that to be called integrity..-;)---Tyr

[jimnyc]

Thanks but I do not do huffingpuke, so I'll take your word for it amigo.
So no judicial review by SCOTUS on her refusal to recuse! That points to corruption within the court. She is a lousy shill for obama. No integrity at all. Just another worthless puke that should be charged with treason . Hell, if they were arrested , tried in court , found guilty and sentenced to execution for treason I'd not only volunteer to deliver the penalty but would provide both the weapon and the ammo! Call it my civic duty and sleep like a baby after doing that service for my country. Notice I cited doing so legally and after their having their day in court and being found guilty and legally sentenced! I am indeed a civic minded and generous guy!-;)-Tyr


Tyr did you know that bu jist simply saying that you won't even read liberal opinion that you are in fact making yourself the equivalent of Democratic Underground?

It wasn't liberal opinion I was linking to, simply facts about Kagan and the recusal discussion.

[OCA]

Your intuition would be wrong as my friends here from our old forum can verify that I called Bush a traitor numerous times on that forum FOR SEVERAL OTHER IMPROPER OATH OF OFFICE BREAKING ACTIONS HE TOOK.
I STATE MY BELIEFS NO MATTER WHICH PARTY OR PERSON THEY CRITICISE OR HARM.
If you use your great Mensa powers(intuition) you may just find that to be called integrity..-;)---Tyr

Call him and his admin traitorous and corrupt from 2000 to 2008 and i'll believe you.

[ConHog]

It wasn't liberal opinion I was linking to, simply facts about Kagan and the recusal discussion.

which is why I still ask, why should she have recused herself?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr did you know that bu jist simply saying that you won't even read liberal opinion that you are in fact making yourself the equivalent of Democratic Underground?

I DID NOT SAY THAT I WILL NOT READ LIBERAL/DEM OPINION. (I do, one must know one's enemy , which Im firm believer in)
I DID SAY THAT I REFUSE TO READ HUFFOPOST GARBAGE.
I choose to get my info from less biased sources and do when necessary use google often to research.
Your post went down a rabbit hole looking for fish, comprehende? -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Call him and his admin traitorous and corrupt from 2000 to 2008 and i'll believe you.

Amigo, I do not require, need or ask for your belief. I'll stand my principles and you stand yours, we'll get along just fine that way. I'm a generous and kind guy until Im crossed THE WRONG WAY. You stating your opinions are ok by me, even more so since I believe you sincere and certainly not always wrong. Its called respect, I give it to those deserving of it. You qualify in my book regardless of who here that pisses off, as I make both friends and enemies with equal lack of concern myself. -Tyr

[OCA]

I DID NOT SAY THAT I WILL NOT READ LIBERAL/DEM OPINION. (I do, one must know one's enemy , which Im firm believer in)
I DID SAY THAT I REFUSE TO READ HUFFOPOST GARBAGE.
I choose to get my info from less biased sources and do when necessary use google often to research.
Your post went down a rabbit hole looking for fish, comprehende? -Tyr

Do you watch fox?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Do you watch fox?

Havent watched Fox in about 4 or 5 years maybe longer.

[OCA]

Amigo, I do not require, need or ask for your belief. I'll stand my principles and youstand yours, we'll get along just fine that way. I'm a generous and kind guy until Im crossed THE WRONG WAY. You stating your opinions are ok by me, even more so since I believe you sincere and certainly not always wrong. Its called respect, I give it to those deserving of it. You qualify in my book regardless of who here that pisses off, as I make both friends and enemies with equal lack of concern myself. -Tyr

You see I don't know anything but the DP tyr and respectfully yojr statement of unbiased opinion doesn't jive with your persona here. I will ask that you present some facts behind you bellowing of treason and corruption...like if you could prove a payment was made to Roberts or something along those lines....justso I see there is wdight behind your words.

[jimnyc]

which is why I still ask, why should she have recused herself?

Perhaps for the same reasons she has already recused herself from quite a few cases. The article I linked to discusses this.

[OCA]

Havent watched Fox in about 4 or 5 years maybe longer.

Listen to conservative talk radio?

[logroller]

As far as I can tell, I'm the lone voice in the wilderness about Kagan's refusal to recuse herself. Amazing that its been ignored so resolutely both here and in the real world too! I havent read anybody else calling Roberts a traitor but myself nor condemning Kagan's refusal to recuse.-Tyr
Amazing that it was ignored in the senate too; oh wait, no it wasn't.

Thanks but I do not do huffingpuke, so I'll take your word for it amigo.
So no judicial review by SCOTUS on her refusal to recuse! That points to corruption within the court. She is a lousy shill for obama. No integrity at all. Just another worthless puke that should be charged with treason . Hell, if they were arrested , tried in court , found guilty and sentenced to execution for treason I'd not only volunteer to deliver the penalty but would provide both the weapon and the ammo! Call it my civic duty and sleep like a baby after doing that service for my country. Notice I cited doing so legally and after their having their day in court and being found guilty and legally sentenced! I am indeed a civic minded and generous guy!-;)-Tyr

Do you ignore any and all sources which don't support your POV?


which is why I still ask, why should she have recused herself?

28 U.S.C. §455

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States

shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which hisimpartiality might reasonably be questioned.(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the followingcircumstances:(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning aparty, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary factsconcerning the proceeding;(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matterin controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced lawserved during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter,or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witnessconcerning it;(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in suchcapacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witnessconcerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning themerits of the particular case in controversy;.</pre>it is alleged that was materially involved while solicitor general. However, she was asked during senate confirmation hearings rather she had been, which she denied; she was also asked whether she would commit to recusal, which she said she would not do. Yet still, she was confirmed 63-37. Later, after she was confirmed, Holder was asked to divulge documents concerning the extent to which she was involved, which is a bit like asking a fox to count the chickens, so we know how that went. Doesn't change the fact she was confirmed, 63-37, even with the issue being discussed during the hearings; so it seems to me that concerns over her impartiality were assuaged. Tyr remains unconvinced...but by his own admonition, he's alone on this.

[Abbey Marie]

So you only try to bully people into voting the way you want them to online? I'm just trying to understand here. Telling someone that vothing the way they want to is dumb is about as un American as anything I can think of.

Oh good lord. This is a political debate board. The day we become a board where we deride someone for having a political opinion on who to vote/not vote for, we should close the site.

[Roo]

Amazing that it was ignored in the senate too; oh wait, no it wasn't.


Do you ignore any and all sources which don't support your POV?



28 U.S.C. §455
[FONT=TimesNewRomanPSMT].</pre>it is alleged that was materially involved while solicitor general. However, she was asked during senate confirmation hearings rather she had been, which she denied; she was also asked whether she would commit to recusal, which she said she would not do. Yet still, she was confirmed 63-37. Later, after she was confirmed, Holder was asked to divulge documents concerning the extent to which she was involved, which is a bit like asking a fox to count the chickens, so we know how that went. Doesn't change the fact she was confirmed, 63-37, even with the issue being discussed during the hearings; so it seems to me that concerns over her impartiality were assuaged. Tyr remains unconvinced...but by his own admonition, he's alone on this.

Tyr is a curious one, but certainly not unbiased in any dimension.

[ConHog]

Oh good lord. This is a political debate board. The day we become a board where we deride someone for having a political opinion on who to vote/not vote for, we should close the site.

Reread my posts Abbey, we're in 100% agreement. LA is the one who called Rev an idiot for saying he was going to vote 3rd party. I on the other handed stated that no one should be telling someone how to vote.

[fj1200]

Why do we need to replace it? Why dont we just get government completely out of our healthcare?

I dont get why we are supposed to let the government run what we do with our bodies when it comes to health but hey saving an unborn baby is just offlimits.

Because before this government hasn't been "completely out of our healthcare." I'll argue that things would be far better if it were but the fact is it wasn't so reverting back to what we had before doesn't bring about needed reform.

It needs MASSIVE deregulation and then treating HC as welfare for those who can't afford it.

[ConHog]

Because before this government hasn't been "completely out of our healthcare." I'll argue that things would be far better if it were but the fact is it wasn't so reverting back to what we had before doesn't bring about needed reform.

It needs MASSIVE deregulation and then treating HC as welfare for those who can't afford it.

Exactly, and unfortunately this bill doesn't solve jack in terms of controlling costs.

[red states rule]

It is clear Mitt and the R's need to run on repealing this tax bill. Since their job will be so much easier with a simple majority in both the House and Senate. I do not see how the Dems can try to mount a filibuster in the Senate

Meanwhile it is likely many employers will start to run numbers are come to realize it wil be much cheaper for them to drop providing healh care benfits all together and pay the 9% payroll tax

I wonder how liberals who lose their coverage at work will respond? Will they blame Bush? The "greedy" employer? Or they rejoice that the GOVERNMENT is now their health care ins provider and expect 100% of their claims to processed quickly and 100% of the bill paid?

For those of us lucky enough to have a job and coverage in the Obama economy I wonder how much of spike we will see as the benfits for 2013 are sent out by our employers? So much for getting "affordable" ins via Obamacare

[logroller]

It is clear Mitt and the R's need to run on repealing this tax bill. Since their job will be so much easier with a simple majority in both the House and Senate. I do not see how the Dems can try to mount a filibuster in the Senate

Meanwhile it is likely many employers will start to run numbers are come to realize it wil be much cheaper for them to drop providing healh care benfits all together and pay the 9% payroll tax

I wonder how liberals who lose their coverage at work will respond? Will they blame Bush? The "greedy" employer? Or they rejoice that the GOVERNMENT is now their health care ins provider and expect 100% of their claims to processed quickly and 100% of the bill paid?

For those of us lucky enough to have a job and coverage in the Obama economy I wonder how much of spike we will see as the benfits for 2013 are sent out by our employers? So much for getting "affordable" ins via Obamacare

I think employers not subsidizing healthcare would actually improve the health insurance system. If more people were actually making those decisions for themselves the market would cater to the actual beneficiaries of the insurance, rather than the business interest. It's not like a business needs health insurance; why would they participate? It'll take some adjustment at first, but I think more informed people in the market will be a benefit to all.

For example, take what your employer pays in premiums and just give that to you as compensation and you seek out your own policy. You could even find other groups in the same boat and join up to get group discounts. Seems way simpler than the employer making a decision which doesn't affect them. Why would your employer care if you have a certain deductible or copay, beyond what they actually outlay in premium cost?

[OCA]

I think employers not subsidizing healthcare would actually improve the health insurance system. If more people were actually making those decisions for themselves the market would cater to the actual beneficiaries of the insurance, rather than the business interest. It's not like a business needs health insurance; why would they participate? It'll take some adjustment at first, but I think more informed people in the market will be a benefit to all.

For example, take what your employer pays in premiums and just give that to you as compensation and you seek out your own policy. You could even find other groups in the same boat and join up to get group discounts. Seems way simpler than the employer making a decision which doesn't affect them. Why would your employer care if you have a certain deductible or copay, beyond what they actually outlay in premium cost?

Damn you and being all sensible! Stop it! RSR doesn't like being made to look foolish.

[red states rule]

I think employers not subsidizing healthcare would actually improve the health insurance system. If more people were actually making those decisions for themselves the market would cater to the actual beneficiaries of the insurance, rather than the business interest. It's not like a business needs health insurance; why would they participate? It'll take some adjustment at first, but I think more informed people in the market will be a benefit to all.

For example, take what your employer pays in premiums and just give that to you as compensation and you seek out your own policy. You could even find other groups in the same boat and join up to get group discounts. Seems way simpler than the employer making a decision which doesn't affect them. Why would your employer care if you have a certain deductible or copay, beyond what they actually outlay in premium cost?

Under your plan, the employees will lose the benfit of group prices, This is what Dems want anyway - to put the ins companies out of business and make the Feds the only game in town

and as far as the impact on business

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35762-Obamacare-s-Impact-on-Businesses-amp-the-Economy

[OCA]

Under your plan, the employees will lose the benfit of group prices, This is what Dems want anyway - to put the ins companies out of business and make the Feds the only game in town

and as far as the impact on business

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35762-Obamacare-s-Impact-on-Businesses-amp-the-Economy

Any impact on business is all speculation at this point......IOW pissin' in the wind.

[red states rule]

Any impact on business is all speculation at this point......IOW pissin' in the wind.

This from the guy who runs a very SMALL business, and boasted about Obama's shitload of economic experience

It is clear your business will be always be nothing more then a small business Mike

[OCA]

This from the guy who runs a very SMALL business, and boasted about Obam's shitload of economic experience

It is clear your business will be always be nothing more then a small business Mike

Do you have a business Terry? No, you will always be an "employee", some people are just meant to be followers.

Probably afraid to take the risk...oh well.

[Abbey Marie]

Reread my posts Abbey, we're in 100% agreement. LA is the one who called Rev an idiot for saying he was going to vote 3rd party. I on the other handed stated that no one should be telling someone how to vote.

I'm too hot and tired to go re-read, and I take your word for it. Mea culpa. :salute:

[red states rule]

Do you have a business Terry? No, you will always be an "employee", some people are just meant to be followers.

Probably afraid to take the risk...oh well.

Yea, one day I can be a "successful" as you. A miserbale grumpy old fart who has to post fake pics of his "hot wife" to try and impress others

Have a nice day Mike and enjoy your birthday

[ConHog]

This from the guy who runs a very SMALL business, and boasted about Obama's shitload of economic experience

It is clear your business will be always be nothing more then a small business Mike

What's that have to do with the thread?




And to counter Log's argument that employers should get out of the health insurance business and just increase pay, I would suggest that is unlikely to save anyone money , save the USG who would collect additional income taxes on the pay increases.

[OCA]

Yea, one day I can be a "successful" as you. A miserbale grumpy old fart who has to post fake pics of his "hot wife" to try and impress others

Have a nice day Mike and enjoy your birthday

*OCA says "its just a matter of time now"*.........seeing you get thread banned will be orgasmic.

[fj1200]

Under your plan, the employees will lose the benfit of group prices, This is what Dems want anyway - to put the ins companies out of business and make the Feds the only game in town

And will make the insurance companies have to compete for every individual customer rather than going after one big company. And there is nothing to say that other groups can't get together. HC tied to your employer is a flawed model that drives so many other problems.


This from the guy who runs a very SMALL business, and boasted about Obama's shitload of economic experience

It is clear your business will be always be nothing more then a small business Mike

WTF? Getting on his case because he runs his own business?

[red states rule]

What's that have to do with the thread?




And to counter Log's argument that employers should get out of the health insurance business and just increase pay, I would suggest that is unlikely to save anyone money , save the USG who would collect additional income taxes on the pay increases.

Try reading post #200 - if that is not asking too much of you

and I did point out the employees would lose the bneefit of group rates

[jimnyc]

*OCA says "its just a matter of time now"*.........seeing you get thread banned will be orgasmic.

I suggest you both ignore one another or both will be thread banned. That's 2 threads in a matter of minutes. Go to the cage if you guys want to fight.

[OCA]

What's that have to do with the thread?

It doesn't, its all he has left.

[logroller]

Under your plan, the employees will lose the benfit of group prices,

How so? Nothing prevents you and I from banding together and getting a group discount...its done all the time in free markets. Quite frankly, I'd guess you could find more similar needs among other groups than you do with your coworkers. Not to mention, as far as negotiated deals to mitigate healthcare costs, that's really what insurance companies should do for their beneficiaries; not employers for their employees. I should work for a company because they pay me; the company pays because I work...where, exactly, in that rather simple exchange is provide group discounts on health insurance deemed necessary or best provided for. Similarly, you need a car to get to work, typically more than you need healthcare to get to work; so should your employer provide car insurance? Of course not, that's on you. What makes healthcare coverage any different?

[OCA]

I suggest you both ignore one another or both will be thread banned. That's 2 threads in a matter of minutes. Go to the cage if you guys want to fight.

Check out the initiator if you would please, not arguing, i'm trying to keep it clean but can't be left to sit and read his crap without anyway to retaliate.

I did ask him to go to the cage, he said no, seems he would rather flame up here.

[red states rule]

How so? Nothing prevents you and I from banding together and getting a group discount...its done all the time in free markets. Quite frankly, I'd guess you could find more similar needs among other groups than you do with your coworkers. Not to mention, as far as negotiated deals to mitigate healthcare costs, that's really what insurance companies should do for their beneficiaries; not employers for their employees. I should work for a company because they pay me; the company pays because I work...where, exactly, in that rather simple exchange is provide group discounts on health insurance deemed necessary or best provided for. Similarly, you need a car to get to work, typically more than you need healthcare to get to work; so should your employer provide car insurance? Of course not, that's on you. What makes healthcare coverage any different?

We could but hundreds or thousands of workers get much better prices then a couple dozen workers

Also with group plans you do not have the per-existing condition clause

Trust me, many of us at work are wondering if some number cruncher will recommend dumping all of into a government plan and paying the 9% payroll tax

and for small business this bill is a massive tax increase that has spiked the cost of doing business thru the roof

BTW, the Feds are foring the employers to provide transportation to and from work - they are foring them provide health ins or pay the tax

[ConHog]

Try reading post #200 - if that is not asking too much of you

and I did point out the employees would lose the bneefit of group rates

I wasn't talking about group rates, I believe employees could form their own groups. I'm talking about taxable income versus untaxed benefits.

If I as an employer am involved in your health insurance I'm paying at least part of the premiums, that's essentially untaxed income for you. If I pay you that amount in pay then of course Uncle Sam is going to want his share. I would imagine that the new tax break given for health care insurance would be similar to what self employed get, not very damn much.

[ConHog]

Check out the initiator if you would please, not arguing, i'm trying to keep it clean but can't be left to sit and read his crap without anyway to retaliate.

I did ask him to go to the cage, he said no, seems he would rather flame up here.

:rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Check out the initiator if you would please, not arguing, i'm trying to keep it clean but can't be left to sit and read his crap without anyway to retaliate.

I did ask him to go to the cage, he said no, seems he would rather flame up here.

You're BOTH screwing up the thread and both starting it. I don't care if someone takes you up on your offer to go to the cage or not, I'm only concerned with decent threads getting screwed up, like this one. Ignore him if you must, but don't become a part of the problem. ANYONE screwing up the threads with the personal crap are part of the problem right now.

[jimnyc]

:rolleyes:

And this one little smiley makes you just as bad. You can't go a thread without getting involved somehow either?

[red states rule]

I wasn't talking about group rates, I believe employees could form their own groups. I'm talking about taxable income versus untaxed benefits.

If I as an employer am involved in your health insurance I'm paying at least part of the premiums, that's essentially untaxed income for you. If I pay you that amount in pay then of course Uncle Sam is going to want his share. I would imagine that the new tax break given for health care insurance would be similar to what self employed get, not very damn much.

But you will not match the sheer numbers that get the group discounts CH. By dumping their workers into the government system, the business saves money and the government gets what they want

Less members for the ins companies which could put some of them out of business

[fj1200]

We could but hundreds or thousands of workers get much better prices then a couple dozen workers

Also with group plans you do not have the per-existing condition clause

Trust me, many of us at work are wondering if some number cruncher will recommend dumping all of into a government plan and paying the 9% payroll tax

and for small business this bill is a massive tax increase that has spiked the cost of doing business thru the roof

BTW, the Feds are foring the employers to provide transportation to and from work - they are foring them provide health ins or pay the tax

Why are you as a small government guy advocating for a system that is a result of big government action? Employer linked HC is a direct result of wage controls out of the New Deal. Wages were capped so employers started lumping in benefits. Most of the problems stem from that, portability was mandated because people change jobs. Why should a job decision be predicated on what HC benefits are offered?

[ConHog]

And this one little smiley makes you just as bad. You can't go a thread without getting involved somehow either?

if you must flame me, take it to the steel cage please, I'm trying to discuss the topic.

Do YOU think employers should provide insurance?

[fj1200]

I wasn't talking about group rates, I believe employees could form their own groups. I'm talking about taxable income versus untaxed benefits.

If I as an employer am involved in your health insurance I'm paying at least part of the premiums, that's essentially untaxed income for you. If I pay you that amount in pay then of course Uncle Sam is going to want his share. I would imagine that the new tax break given for health care insurance would be similar to what self employed get, not very damn much.

Another big government result. Business is granted tax breaks for insurance where an individual purchaser is not.

[jimnyc]

if you must flame me, take it to the steel cage please, I'm trying to discuss the topic.

Do YOU think employers should provide insurance?

CH removed from discussion.

[logroller]

We could but hundreds or thousands of workers get much better prices then a couple dozen workers

Also with group plans you do not have the per-existing condition clause

Trust me, many of us at work are wondering if some number cruncher will recommend dumping all of into a government plan and paying the 9% payroll tax

and for small business this bill is a massive tax increase that has spiked the cost of doing business thru the roof

BTW, the Feds are foring the employers to provide transportation to and from work - they are foring them provide health ins or pay the tax
Millions could band together, as individuals, rather than having their employers make the decision on their behalf.
There are certainly some troubling aspects to PPACA; what I'm trying to convey is the current system is no less flawed; so much so it allowed for the passage of PPACA-- sorta says something there. We need to take a good hard look at what errors our healthcare system has and what this ruling means as far government interest in streammarkets. it's not a dem vs rep thing; everybody gets screwed by healthcare costs, obamacare didn't make that happen.

[red states rule]

Millions could band together, as individuals, rather than having their employers make the decision on their behalf.
There are certainly some troubling aspects to PPACA; what I'm trying to convey is the current system is no less flawed; so much so it allowed for the passage of PPACA-- sorta says something there. We need to take a good hard look at what errors our healthcare system has and what this ruling means as far government interest in streammarkets. it's not a dem vs rep thing; everybody gets screwed by healthcare costs, obamacare didn't make that happen.


I bet you leave your wish list out for Santa on Christmas Eve LR

Poll after poll shows most people are happy with their current healthcare plan. I know I am and Obamacare could screw all of that up for all of us

[Abbey Marie]

Millions could band together, as individuals, rather than having their employers make the decision on their behalf.
There are certainly some troubling aspects to PPACA; what I'm trying to convey is the current system is no less flawed; so much so it allowed for the passage of PPACA-- sorta says something there. We need to take a good hard look at what errors our healthcare system has and what this ruling means as far government interest in streammarkets. it's not a dem vs rep thing; everybody gets screwed by healthcare costs, obamacare didn't make that happen.

Nothing is perfect, but I was under the impression that people come here from all over to utilize our fantastic health-care. No?

[red states rule]

Nothing is perfect, but I was under the impression that people come here from all over to utilize our fantastic health-care. No?


If Michael Moore ever needs a heart bypass will he get it here or in Cuba?

[Gaffer]

If Michael Moore ever needs a heart bypass will he get it here or in Cuba?

I hope he goes to cuba.

[red states rule]

I hope he goes to cuba.


Well he did say what a healthcare system he had

I am sure the Cuban hospital would use a rusty needle to draw blood :laugh2:

[aboutime]

Well he did say what a healthcare system he had

I am sure the Cuban hospital would use a rusty needle to draw blood :laugh2:

What good would that do?
I've been around for a long, long time, and I've never seen a garbage can with a heart,
or the ability to bleed anything but garbage juice?

[red states rule]

What good would that do?
I've been around for a long, long time, and I've never seen a garbage can with a heart,
or the ability to bleed anything but garbage juice?

It would have to a very LONG needle to get thru all that blubber on his frame

[aboutime]

It would have to a very LONG needle to get thru all that blubber on his frame


How long would you keep trying if ALL of the needles kept breaking in that Garbage Blubber? Would Moore ask OBAMA for help with Obamacare, or just allow the Death squads to do their fine work?

[red states rule]

How long would you keep trying if ALL of the needles kept breaking in that Garbage Blubber? Would Moore ask OBAMA for help with Obamacare, or just allow the Death squads to do their fine work?

Until he looked like this

http://www.awf.org/files/3822_file_porcupine_Boulton.jpg

[aboutime]

Until he looked like this

http://www.awf.org/files/3822_file_porcupine_Boulton.jpg

That would be a MAJOR insult to Porcupines everywhere.

[Missileman]

Under your plan, the employees will lose the benfit of group prices, This is what Dems want anyway - to put the ins companies out of business and make the Feds the only game in town

and as far as the impact on business

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?35762-Obamacare-s-Impact-on-Businesses-amp-the-Economy

If the insurance company can afford to insure someone for x amount of dollars, it shouldn't matter whether it's a group or individual. Let insurance companies compete across state lines and rates will go down. I've said all along that people need to stop getting their health coverage from their employer and buy it from an insurance agent like auto and homeowner policies. If they did, they wouldn't have to change insurance when they changed employers and the pre-existing coverage thing would shrivel up to a mostly non-issue.

[red states rule]

If the insurance company can afford to insure someone for x amount of dollars, it shouldn't matter whether it's a group or individual. Let insurance companies compete across state lines and rates will go down. I've said all along that people need to stop getting their health coverage from their employer and buy it from an insurance agent like auto and homeowner policies. If they did, they wouldn't have to change insurance when they changed employers and the pre-existing coverage thing would shrivel up to a mostly non-issue.

I have said the same thing about state ines MM

In fact R's wanted that in Obamacare but Dems said no. The last thing the Dems wanted was to open up markets to competition

They want private ins companies out of business

[aboutime]

If the insurance company can afford to insure someone for x amount of dollars, it shouldn't matter whether it's a group or individual. Let insurance companies compete across state lines and rates will go down. I've said all along that people need to stop getting their health coverage from their employer and buy it from an insurance agent like auto and homeowner policies. If they did, they wouldn't have to change insurance when they changed employers and the pre-existing coverage thing would shrivel up to a mostly non-issue.


Missileman. That is almost exactly what many of us out here in NEVER, NEVER land have been trying to say for years.
The key word is "COMPETITION". We need the government, federal, and state, to get out of the way, and allow ACROSS STATE LINES business practices that allow people in one state, to purchase insurance in another state.
If that took place. The OBAMACARE fiasco would DIE like a stuffed Micheal Moore Rotten Tomato.

[red states rule]

Missileman. That is almost exactly what many of us out here in NEVER, NEVER land have been trying to say for years.
The key word is "COMPETITION". We need the government, federal, and state, to get out of the way, and allow ACROSS STATE LINES business practices that allow people in one state, to purchase insurance in another state.
If that took place. The OBAMACARE fiasco would DIE like a stuffed Micheal Moore Rotten Tomato.

That is what Mitt said recently. You know, the speech he gave where MSNBC edited out the competition for government comments?



http://youtu.be/IFcOBRqL8kk

[Roo]

Since when are you the keeper of the almighty truth?

Maybe about the same time you did.

You know whet they say about opnions.

[logroller]

I bet you leave your wish list out for Santa on Christmas Eve LR

Poll after poll shows most people are happy with their current healthcare plan. I know I am and Obamacare could screw all of that up for all of us
Of course I do; round my house you get socks and underwear if you don't!
Poll after poll showed the individual mandate would be overturned...perhaps polls aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Nothing is perfect, but I was under the impression that people come here from all over to utilize our fantastic health-care. No?
Really? Haven't heard that. I have seen statistics of how comparably poor our healthcare is respectiv of the cost...so where might these people come from? I'm not saying it doesn't happen; but people here go to Europe for stem cell stuff. Some peculiar niche doesn't indicate a systemic advantage.

[red state]

I hope he goes to cuba.


HA!!! I have a list of folks that I'd like to see go to CUBA.....or anywhere but HERE in MY country.

[red state]

Aboutime is right...as usual. This is nothing but a socialistic power grab and we still don't know everything that's in it but much of what we do know is extremely bad. It has very, Very, VERY little good in it but opening the State line to insurance shopping would definitely be one factor among many that would make "obamacare" obsolete.

Changing the subject but how does one go to the CAGE here....I haven't come across that yet but have found the ONE on ONE debate section. And for the record, Tyr is an extremely honorable individual and as fair a person as I know (until you try and trample OUR freedoms). In that event, he's as mean as I can be. HA! OCA, I don't waste my time reading Huffington Post either but I do read local and nation news (briefly). They are read briefly but like liberal talk shows, I can stomach only so much garbage. I usually watch FOX and jump to CNN on occasion just to get a second opinion. CNN are usually full of junk journalism but sometimes they actually nail it (sometimes). I suggest folks read Sword of the Lord. Now that is news I can get into as it has news and commentary afterward. I simply do not see wasting my time reading a liberal paper when they add something that I already know to be an outright lie. When I come across that within a story (and I usually do) I put it in the trash or change the web page. It is good to know one's enemy BUT I can stomach only so much of their misleading. You sir, are the second person that I know of who has assumed Tyr to be something he is not and I don't believe you want to put yourself in the same boat as that @$$HOLE.

In closing and getting back on subject, this entire debate/conversation should not be going on because upholding obamacare was a fishy, corrupt decision because it was not created, introduced or admitted to be a tax and Roberts couldn't even say what kind of tax it was....only that is is NOT a tax in one situation but IS a tax for the other possibility as long as it suits his/their need. George Bush seems to continually come back to bite us in the @$$....and I had to vote for him twice!!! I hope for a change (REAL CHANGE) when I can vote for someone who excites me to the point that AMERICA will once again be what she is supposed to be....the blatant corruption we see going on now is not the AMERICA that I know.


Missileman. That is almost exactly what many of us out here in NEVER, NEVER land have been trying to say for years.
The key word is "COMPETITION". We need the government, federal, and state, to get out of the way, and allow ACROSS STATE LINES business practices that allow people in one state, to purchase insurance in another state.
If that took place. The OBAMACARE fiasco would DIE like a stuffed Micheal Moore Rotten Tomato.

[Roo]

There is a strong egocentric streak that wipes away much of what you would term "honrable and fair".

I find people that hold their own opinions in such high regard generally to be trying to make up for something that they are lacking....ego has a way of derailing what might otherwise be something worthwhile to read.

Roo<----just some some schmuck from Omaha that doesn't take himself too seriously.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Aboutime is right...as usual. This is nothing but a socialistic power grab and we still don't know everything that's in it but much of what we do know is extremely bad. It has very, Very, VERY little good in it but opening the State line to insurance shopping would definitely be one factor among many that would make "obamacare" obsolete.

Changing the subject but how does one go to the CAGE here....I haven't come across that yet but have found the ONE on ONE debate section. And for the record, Tyr is an extremely honorable individual and as fair a person as I know (until you try and trample OUR freedoms). In that event, he's as mean as I can be. HA! OCA, I don't waste my time reading Huffington Post either but I do read local and nation news (briefly). They are read briefly but like liberal talk shows, I can stomach only so much garbage. I usually watch FOX and jump to CNN on occasion just to get a second opinion. CNN are usually full of junk journalism but sometimes they actually nail it (sometimes). I suggest folks read Sword of the Lord. Now that is news I can get into as it has news and commentary afterward. I simply do not see wasting my time reading a liberal paper when they add something that I already know to be an outright lie. When I come across that within a story (and I usually do) I put it in the trash or change the web page. It is good to know one's enemy BUT I can stomach only so much of their misleading. You sir, are the second person that I know of who has assumed Tyr to be something he is not and I don't believe you want to put yourself in the same boat as that @$$HOLE.

In closing and getting back on subject, this entire debate/conversation should not be going on because upholding obamacare was a fishy, corrupt decision because it was not created, introduced or admitted to be a tax and Roberts couldn't even say what kind of tax it was....only that is is NOT a tax in one situation but IS a tax for the other possibility as long as it suits his/their need. George Bush seems to continually come back to bite us in the @$$....and I had to vote for him twice!!! I hope for a change (REAL CHANGE) when I can vote for someone who excites me to the point that AMERICA will once again be what she is supposed to be....the blatant corruption we see going on now is not the AMERICA that I know.

Our government is corrupt and that corruption has infiltrated the SCOTUS as well. This coming election will be the decider if the Republic stands or eventually falls. My critics can piss and moan all they care to ,doesnt change the reality that this nation is in far greater peril than at any time since WW2. -Tyr

[aboutime]

I have said the same thing about state ines MM

In fact R's wanted that in Obamacare but Dems said no. The last thing the Dems wanted was to open up markets to competition

They want private ins companies out of business


Of course. Obama and company need to chase Insurance companies OUT of business. It's the one, and only way Obama and the Dems can get TOTAL control over everyone. With no private insurance competition.
Obama and the Dems can SET THE PRICE, and DETERMINE WHO will get what coverage from OBAMA-DEM INSURANCE, aka GOVERNMENT INSURANCE.
And, just as Justice Roberts told us on Thursday....Any American who DOES NOT PURCHASE Obama-Dem/Govt. Insurance will be TAXED,...or is it FINED?
Socialism is that PAIN IN THE ASS every American will really start feeling in January if Obama wins in November.

[Roo]

Of course. Obama and company need to chase Insurance companies OUT of business. It's the one, and only way Obama and the Dems can get TOTAL control over everyone. With no private insurance competition.
Obama and the Dems can SET THE PRICE, and DETERMINE WHO will get what coverage from OBAMA-DEM INSURANCE, aka GOVERNMENT INSURANCE.
And, just as Justice Roberts told us on Thursday....Any American who DOES NOT PURCHASE Obama-Dem/Govt. Insurance will be TAXED,...or is it FINED?
Socialism is that PAIN IN THE ASS every American will really start feeling in January if Obama wins in November.

The ONLY way this could have been avoided was to strike down the ENTIRE Bill, not just the mandate.

All the mandate does is speed up the process.

The ONLY companies that can sell policies are those APPROVED by the State Exchanges....which are the enforcement mechanisms for the Federal Coverage Mandates.

ALL insurance providers approved will offer the SAME coverages for the SAME premiums.....

[red states rule]

Of course. Obama and company need to chase Insurance companies OUT of business. It's the one, and only way Obama and the Dems can get TOTAL control over everyone. With no private insurance competition.
Obama and the Dems can SET THE PRICE, and DETERMINE WHO will get what coverage from OBAMA-DEM INSURANCE, aka GOVERNMENT INSURANCE.
And, just as Justice Roberts told us on Thursday....Any American who DOES NOT PURCHASE Obama-Dem/Govt. Insurance will be TAXED,...or is it FINED?
Socialism is that PAIN IN THE ASS every American will really start feeling in January if Obama wins in November.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/B_Foden20120630-ocare20120629032211.jpg

[avatar4321]

WOO WOOO.....this way to the empty rhetoric train!

Empty rhetoric? We are talking about human lives here. Do you honestly think making our health care system worse is going to keep people alive?

[red states rule]

Empty rhetoric? We are talking about human lives here. Do you honestly think making our health care system worse is going to keep people alive?


Many like OCA and Nell seem to think it is better for the state that the old, and terminally ill die fast and save the money time, effort, and money

America is looking like 1932 Berlin when human life is measured in dollars and cents by the government and the supporters of Obamacare

[aboutime]

Empty rhetoric? We are talking about human lives here. Do you honestly think making our health care system worse is going to keep people alive?


That was a typical kind of liberal response avatar. They always seem to think they are much smarter, wiser, and knowledgeable than everyone else. So, they use the patronizing route to declare how Empty they honestly believe...everyone but them...really is.

Much like never honestly taking time to answer questions when confronted with forms of truth they must always deny. Otherwise. They look bad for being exposed as liberally brainwashed, and never taking responsibility for their own Thoughts, or idea's.

So. It's just another of many days where the frustrated, and miserable do as Obama has taught them so well. Accuse others, and Blame others to conceal their own Shortcomings.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Foden20120703-Obamaduck20120702025107.jpg