|
|
|
|
|
| | Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care MandatePage 4 of 5 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) | quote from Paul K...sorry messed this up
"Does the federal govt. have the right to force a person to purchase a service by levying a TAX if the individual does not comply by purchasing said service?
I don't know what, if any, precedent there is to that question."
Tax is not the word we use, we get a statement. Otherwise known as a bill.
If payment methods are not paid even after all this, the person will not get their medical card and they will have a hard time finding service. They will also be dinged for back payments at the top of the scale and interest charges on top of it all. If still no payment, they are breaking the law and will have to appear in court of some sort, if they still don't pay, legal proceedings, then it is up the the courts to decide how they will deal with it and how they will get the money.
Most canadians pay their premiums, we're just that way. We don't want to burden a system that we may have to count on or that others count on. It's just...rude. lol | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/29/2012 2:13:00 PM | I really, really, really puzzled by conservatives extreme dislike of the individual mandate. Remembering back to when health care reform was first proposed, President Obama was proposing a public option. This was seen as a compromise between those on the left who wanted govenment run single payer insurance and those on the right who wanted, well nothing.
When the public option couldn't get the support he needed to have it pass the President introduced the idea of the individual mandate. Everyone on the left were aghast. It was seen as a sellout to the insurance companies. The individual mandate was first proposed by Richard Nixon for gawds sake. It had been trumpeted by the Heritage Foundation, an extreme right wing thing tank.
Newt Gingrich supported a mandate as recently as 2009. And the left had thought they had elected a liberal.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/newt-gingrich-supported-an-individual-mandate-as-recently-as-may-2009/252233/
After health care reform passed, those on the left came to accept that the individual mandate as the best that could be achieved. At least it made it possible for more of the working poor to get insurance. No more would people be refused because of a preexisting condition. It seemed to be the classic win win negotiation.
Except it didn't work that way. When you listen to conservatives now they speak of this individual mandate, a conservative idea, as socialism. Why is it now socialism and not when Nixon was proposing this. Why was it not socialism when Newt Gringrich supported it. And why is Mitt Romney not called a socialist for introducing the same system in Massachusetts.
With conservatives I think it is a matter they wouldn't have cared what President Obama proposed at all. They would have been against it. | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/29/2012 2:23:00 PM | What's this "taxation without representation" doodie?
An elected president and congress passed laws enabling changes to health care. Plenty of representation. Even more form the health-car and insurance lobbies, too.
Vote against it if you want to. Don't pretend President Obama and his Democratic congress were overwhelmingly elected with health care as a key platform item by people without ample opportunity to choose to do so or not.
The increase in insurance costs was rationalized (by insurers) as necessary to pay for the elimination of refusals and discrimination, and denial of benefits at random. Americans are getting a lot more; paying less but ending up not getting coverage after years of paying is no bargain.
PLAYING WITH POLLS: All through this debate, universal health-care has been more popular than what the lobbyists forced on congress. The health-care mandate, too, scores consistent majorities.
Only when the term, "Obamacare" is used does support ever drop below half!
ED BEAR | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/29/2012 2:25:27 PM | With conservatives I think it is a matter they wouldn't have cared what President Obama proposed at all. They would have been against it.
That is exactly right:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc
They would see the economy go down the toilet rather than see Obama win a second term. This was a declaration of war by Mitch McConnell against the President of the United States, and so by extension, a declaration of war against the country and citizens. In my opinion, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell should be held for treason and if found guilty, face the penalty handed out for that crime. | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/29/2012 3:11:13 PM | Not sure if other states have done this, but at the same time partisan conservatives were up in arms over "Obamacare", our Tennessee Republicans, with the guidance of the insurance industry, were writing mandatory Workers Compensation coverage. Many of my self-employed colleagues and I have opted out of the 15-20% Workers Comp coverage for years. Paying $10,000 a year for a policay that fought tooth and nail not to pay on rare occassions it was used, seemed like a waste of income. Now the law is written that to opt out, for the last three years we have been paying the $750 fee to opt out. No one in the conservative legislature championed the cause for workers. They did however have strong opinions on "Obamacare" mandates.
As with Romney and many other conservatives who were for many of the aspects of the ACA, they liked it at the time before Obama got elected and pushed it, and they needed to turn it into another hot button issue to obfuscate their horrible performance in helping with economic recovery. | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/29/2012 3:28:18 PM |
In canada, if someone ends up at the dr. or hospital and hasn't been paying their premiums (monthly medical payments paid in increments, based on income), they are not refused service but when they get home they are met with the back owing bill of payments missed. If they pay the owing bill, even in payments, they're in the clear. If they don't pay the back owing, then this gets known by the drs. and hospitals and they have the option of refusing service, unless it's an emergency hospital visit. I think the gov't has the option of holding back tax refunds to pay the bill too but I could be wrong here. If things have changed, someone please update.
I think you really need to be clear that the above scenario does not necessarily hold true nor does it apply for all provinces/territories in Canada. Every province is different in what medical services they cover under the blanket of universal health care and whether they charge premiums to residents of their specific provinces. I note the poster of the above quote lives in British Columbia where premiums for universal health care are still charged to persons residing in that province. I live in Alberta where no premiums have been charged for my province's universal health care services since late 2008. In other words, the Canada Health Act provides for basic health care for all residents of Canada but it is left to the discretion of each province/territory just exactly what procedures/services are covered and provided by each provinces'/territories' universal health care and whether or not premiums are collected. | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/29/2012 3:36:00 PM |
When you listen to conservatives now they speak of this individual mandate, a conservative idea, as socialism.
Making a federal law that requires us all to buy a specified thing is NOT a conservative idea, or even remotely like one. No such authority exists in the Constitution, and Chief Justice Roberts knows it. So do the four statists who voted with him. This law is an exercise in lawlessness, and so was the decision that upheld it.
And why is Mitt Romney not called a socialist for introducing the same system in Massachusetts.
Did you ever take a Civics class? I ask because it's clear you don't understand that states have inherent powers, but the federal government has only the limited and enumerated powers the states ceded to it in the Constitution.
If Massachusetts wants to give all its residents subsidized medical care--or anything else--as long as it doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution or any federal law or treaty, Massachusetts has the inherent authority, usually known as the "police power," to do it. But the U.S. has no such authority, despite what five lawyers in black robes found it convenient to proclaim yesterday.
With conservatives I think it is a matter they wouldn't have cared what President Obama proposed at all. They would have been against it.
I don't know why it should surprise anyone that conservatives, who love this country and its Constitution, would oppose pretty much everything a dishonorable Marxist liar who despises them both might say or do. | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/29/2012 3:57:18 PM |
Making a federal law that requires us all to buy a specified thing is NOT a conservative idea, or even remotely like one. No such authority exists in the Constitution, and Chief Justice Roberts knows it. So do the four statists who voted with him. This law is an exercise in lawlessness, and so was the decision that upheld it.
O RLY?
"In order to make coverage more accessible, Congress must do more, including passing legislation to (among other things) require anyone who earns more than $50,000 a year to purchase health insurance or post a bond."
Newt Gingrich,
June 25, 2007 | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/29/2012 5:04:32 PM | This is a little different from the above comments but...
A new customer came in the Barber shop door today wanting to rant about Obama and the Health care bill passing the Supreme Court yesterday.
(He was one of those angry kinds of people. The one's that want to express their opinions...louldly.)
When I naturally shied away from an inflammatory "discussion", and tried to graciously steer it toward another(safer) topic; he got upset and called for freedom of speech.
I apologized for business purposes and tried to smooth it over, but when he left he raised his hand in curt dismissal and stomped out the door. Of course everyone in the shop was now aware that something was up at that point, so I made a joke to my boss (the only other barber in this shop) saying something about ,
"I think I might have run off a new client ." And my boss replied, "Yea that's happened to me before".
And then we went about our business.
But that kind of thing happens all the time in the Barber shop. Political issues can be a highly charged topic.
Some clients will say anything. We KNOW which ones are volatile for the most part.
We don't encourage them to get upset.
fyi: They all pretty much hate Obama.
I am considered by the few who know it as one of "those Democrats".
I try to keep it hush hush. It could be detrimental. | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/29/2012 5:13:49 PM | Yeah, I've kind of noticed the same thing in these threads.
Any rebuttal of bullshit is pretty much guaranteed to bring out accusations of suppression of free speech. Apparently "free speech" means that the right can lie all they want and never get called on it. Of course if the NY Times publishes pictures of atrocities, then that means it should be shut down.
Mostly the extreme right really hate America and the Constitution. | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/29/2012 5:24:23 PM | Making a federal law that requires us all to buy a specified thing is NOT a conservative idea, or even remotely like one.
Here is the history of the individual mandate.
The tale begins in the late 1980s, when conservative economists such as Mark Pauly, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of business, were searching for ways to counter liberal calls for government-sponsored universal health coverage.
“We wanted to find an alternative that was more consistent with market-oriented economic ideas and would involve less government intervention,” Pauly said.
His solution: a system of tax credits to ensure that all Americans could purchase at least bare-bones “catastrophic” coverage.
Pauly then proposed a mandate requiring everyone to obtain this minimum coverage, thus guarding against free-riders: people who refuse to buy insurance and then, in a crisis, receive care whose costs are absorbed by hospitals, the government and other consumers.
Especially note the last paragraph. Now lets just admit it. President Obama took a Republican idea and ran with it. If it had been John McCain who had won the election and he proposed it, you would be singing its praises. How it promotes people taking resposibilty for themselves. No more freeloaders.
No such authority exists in the Constitution, and Chief Justice Roberts knows it. So do the four statists who voted with him. This law is an exercise in lawlessness, and so was the decision that upheld it.
The SCOTUS does not agree with you. It has been ruled constitutional. A survey of 21 constitutional law professers had 19 out of 21 also saying the law should be upheld.
The U.S. Supreme Court should uphold a law requiring most Americans to have health insurance if the justices follow legal precedent, according to 19 of 21 constitutional law professors who ventured an opinion on the most-anticipated ruling in years.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-22/law-experts-say-health-measure-legal-as-some-doubt-court-agrees.html
Did you ever take a Civics class? I ask because it's clear you don't understand that states have inherent powers, but the federal government has only the limited and enumerated powers the states ceded to it in the Constitution.
No need to be a sanctimonious prick. Trying to bully other posters is not the way to have a discussion.
If Massachusetts wants to give all its residents subsidized medical care--or anything else--as long as it doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution or any federal law or treaty, Massachusetts has the inherent authority, usually known as the "police power," to do it. But the U.S. has no such authority, despite what five lawyers in black robes found it convenient to proclaim yesterday.
My question is why when President Obama introduces a health care plan, ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS by the way, he is a socialist. When Romney does it, he's not.
But the U.S. has no such authority, despite what five lawyers in black robes found it convenient to proclaim yesterday.
But the U.S. does have that authority. And you can't change it. | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/29/2012 7:44:51 PM |
The US Constitution is set up so that what its primary job is to PROTECT the individual from the federal govt.
Making stuff up doesn't make it so.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
| |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/29/2012 8:22:59 PM |
President Obama took a Republican idea and ran with it.
I don't think it's a republican or democrat originated idea.
I think it's been circulating a long time in general.
At least since medicaid and medicare came into being.
If it had been John McCain who had won the election and he proposed it, you would be singing its praises.
Maybe. I don't know the poster in question.
I do know if McCain had won the election and proposed it, I would not be singing its praises.
There seems to be some basic cause and effect, common sense, kind of problems.
Especially dealing with insurance.
Such as the whole moral and morale hazards of insurance.
Which are abundant and obvious in the current medical insurance costs.
How it promotes people taking resposibilty for themselves.
It doesn't promote people taking responsibility for themselves.
That's like saying "requiring people to wear seat belts, requiring auto manufacturers to install air bags, has made people drive more safely, to take responsibility for themselves while driving."
Again, common sense cause and effect, look up moral and morale hazards of insurance.
Insurance companies deal with those hazards.
Now they are guaranteed payment to cover them.
No such authority exists in the Constitution, and Chief Justice Roberts knows it...
The SCOTUS does not agree with you. It has been ruled constitutional.
IMO you left out a significant context of this where he said
Making a federal law that requires us all to buy a specified thing is NOT....
Even Roberts agreed, it's in his arguments, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives the government power to force people to engage in commerce.
But the act doesn't force people to engage in commerce. They only get a higher tax bill if they don't buy insurance.
Kind of sort of like property tax. You don't have to buy a property, but if you do, you get taxed.
If you don't buy property, you don't get to take a mortgage payment deduction, so you get a higher tax bill.
Not to mention you are either misunderstanding or ignoring some text from the Bloomberg article.
A survey of 21 constitutional law professers had 19 out of 21 also saying the law should be upheld.
The caveat for the 19/21 law professors saying the law should be upheld is
if the justices follow legal precedent
They aren't saying it is legal to pass, only that it's "easy" if the justices follow precedent.
There is a difference.
There used to be precedent for laws prohibiting miscegenation as constitutional. | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/29/2012 8:45:41 PM | Here's another source of information on the Health Care Mandate. The first 17 minutes are callers sharing their opinions about the Supreme Court Decision, Obama speaking, and Romney speaking. The guest (sorry forget his name at the moment) shares his knowledge on the Health Care Bill for the rest of the hour. He talks about the taxation, the monthly premiums for some sectors of income, and about the bill overall in this hour long interview.
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/81920
Personally, I think that EVERYONE having access to health care in the United States is a step in the right direction! I do hope that the two sides of the divide can one day meet in the middle, and decide to work together on what's good for ALL the citizens of the U.S. whatever the topic may be at hand..."Oh, What A Happy Day That Would Be" :p
After all...aren't we the UNITED States of America?? | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/30/2012 12:00:36 AM | For the last 13 years i've been fortunate to work for companies that have gave me 80-100% medical coverage thanks mainly to union influence and favorable government laws. I'm appreciative of this and show it by not abusing the system & by taking care of myself. I cut out fast food and junk. Dont drink. Exercise regularly. Read labels. Dont smoke etc. I rarely get sick and havent been to a doctor in years but that's just me.
From what i've read this is just part of the government's scheme to start a class war or at least throw fuel on the fire. Let's face it - the middle class is getting annilated . If the ultra rich paid their fair share in taxes instead of being exempt (even Buffet's tax suggestion excludes people like him from it) things would be a lot better. But as long as the corrupt are focusing on handing out the money to their corporate backers instead of the people, no system will be proper. | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/30/2012 5:34:21 AM | Insurance companies can't drop or refuse you for pre-existing conditions.
*They can't cap your lifetime benefits.
*They can't refuse to insure children who have preexisting conditions.
*You can keep your children on your insurance into adulthood and until they can afford it themselves.
*Insurance companies can't jack up your rate arbitrarily to try and drive you off their books.
No, but they can charge higher premiums across the board and/or reduce their services. Of course, reducing services isn't really much of an option when insurance companies are forced to provide unlimited lifetime benefits for somebody's lousy pre-existing condition. Therefore, they will be compelled by stark financial reality mostly to charge substantially higher premiums to everyone, just to save you from yourself and your pre-existing condition. As I said before, with diabetes running at practically epidemic levels in this country (most of it self-induced), diabetes and all its related "pre-existing" conditions are in themselves enough to bankrupt the system probably within five years. Let's be conservative and say 10 years. Affordable??? LOL if you say so....
So what, exactly, is wrong with the ACA, the things listed above, EXCEPT that the man sitting in the White House?
For one thing, pie-in-the-sky ideas about what's affordable is what’s wrong with it. Looks good on paper, though. I'll give ya that. But there are so many other things wrong with our healthcare system that passing massive new taxes, calling it "affordable" and patting Obama on the back for lying to the public to accomplish his legacy just isn't going to be a workable solution. I'm sure it will get him LOTS of votes though... he is the black Roosevelt... a chicken in every pot/a salve for every ass. I'm not saying that people should be denied access to the health care they need. I'm saying it's unworkable because as it stands now doctors are forced into making health care decisions based not on their patients' needs but on the needs of the insurance companies. Now the government comes along and says that the needs of the insurance companies aren't defined by their needs, but by the federal government…. In other words, hordes of unelected bureaucrats unleashed by the President because he lied to your face and told you it wasn't a tax *and* it would be affordable. And you think that's going to make things more affordable? What a laugh!! It’s positively Kafkaesque.
In a nutshell, here's what happened. We put insurance companies in charge of making health care decisions. Then we put the government in charge of making insurance decisions. Who do we put in charge of making government decisions??? A bunch of unrealistic ideologues who think they can legislate their way into universal health and prosperity by raising taxes??? Well you know what they say.... shit rolls downhill.... This simply isn't going to make anything more affordable for anyone.... It can't. The system is designed to fail or work marginally at best. But congratulations for buying into the sales pitch, I’m sure it made you feel better to believe that insurance companies have bottomless pockets and wouldn’t think of passing a dime of their ballooning expenses onto you. "Hi I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
 | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/30/2012 6:29:54 AM | | Want 'best-case' ... ? Let's see: In November, Romney defeats Obama, the Republicans hold the House and become the majority in the Senate. Romney carries out his pledge to repeal ObamaCare and it carries the House and Senate. Obamacare is repealed. Good news, right? No. Why? Simple. PRECEDENT has already been established. In law, precedent is everything. Future Presidents and Congresses now have a road map to use so as to re-craft future legislation that will bring about 'ObamaCare II' at some point in the indeterminate future. ObamaCare may be - and should be - repealed, but do not make the mistake of believing repeal will end the threat of 'single-payer' or Government-mandated healthcare. The precedent now exists that tells every dictator-in-waiting that the Supreme Court will bless their attempt(-s) to force the American people they have to not only OBEY but BUY any and all 'products and services' the Government deems 'necessary and proper' (even tho' that's not the immediate cause to establish precedent). All the future dictator need do is make certain the 'law' is worded properly and SCOTUS will provide its blessing. (As an aside, this is why it's important Obama not be given the opportunity to appoint any other Justices to the Court). If Romney wins, and if the Republicans overturn ObamaCare, it is NOT reason to believe the problem is over or that the threat has been removed forever. It isn't and it hasn't been. The fight to maintain our freedom is ongoing and endless, and there are always those ones waiting in the wings to take it away. The simple promise of 'insurance' is not the same as providing access to quality medical care. ObamaCare will never improve healthcare - it can only reduce it to 'lowest common denominator'. Be careful what you wish for. You might get it. | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/30/2012 6:50:49 AM | Kings Knight is correct about the precedent thing, once a foundation has been laid in law, whether you agree with it or not, it will now be possible to build upon it from here on.
As to this particular situation, I actually wanted the court to strike the provision down, despite the fact that I also believe that ultimately we will have to follow with some sort of government-sponsored health care, such as is done in the UK nations.
The reason I wanted this plan struck down, is that it was cobbled together from the start, with some nice intent being hamstrung by limits that prevented the good things from actually being possible. It did nothing to lower the cost of health care, and in fact, I lost my own ability to afford coverage after it was passed, because all the insurance companies immediately quadrupled their charges, in advance of being forced to accept pre-existing conditions.
So now, I know that I will have to pay a tax/fine next year, because I CAN'T get insurance anywhere.
The biggest problem I foresee if the GOP wins the Presidency and control of both houses of Congress, isn't that repealing this mess will still leave the foundation in place. The problem is, that the GOP has made it clear that they will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to address the very real problems of wildly over-priced health care.
The thing is, we do not now HAVE a "free enterprise" health care system. We have essentially a dictatorship of the AMA and other medical authorities, who have set up a host of rules and regulations, which have all but required all medical practitioners to do the same things, run the same unnecessary tests, and charge the same over-blown and non-competitive fees. Since the GOP is philosophically and mindlessly opposed to intervening to get rid of such structures, since they were not created by the Democrats, nothing will be done.
By the way, I have heard a rumor to the effect that the reason why Chief Justice Roberts sided with leaving this in place, has directly to do with his opposition to "Activist Courts." If that is true, then it is another interesting example how one ought to be careful what one wishes for. Lots of conservatives pushed to have more "non-activist" justices on the high court, and they got them. They forgot that "non-activist" also meant that stuff that Democrats and Liberals passed into law, would ALSO have to be left in place by "non-activist" Justices. | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/30/2012 9:04:16 AM | It's frustrating when the most informed people don't have the information, but we can all be forgiven for that as the only debate has been one sided on this issue. And why wouldn't it be? The opponents spent $240 Million on TV ads to mislead people, and TV stations like any other business seem to favor those who spend the most money with them.
It did nothing to lower the cost of health care, and in fact, I lost my own ability to afford coverage after it was passed, because all the insurance companies immediately quadrupled their charges, in advance of being forced to accept pre-existing conditions.
One part of the law actually did do something to lower the cost, here's a great article on what was achieved. I can't talk to why your charges have quadrupled, I personally have not seen anything but the typical annual price increase (despite declining use of service), which will not be legal next year without justification. There was a provision that requred insurance companies to spend specific percentage of premiums on health services which apparently kicked in this year that will trigger a refund from the companies that overcharged unnecessarily. But the below statement does prove that something is happening in effort to control pricing:
The cash discounts evolved over time after hospitals were criticized in recent years for charging the uninsured their highest rates and then hounding them at times with overzealous collection efforts.
New government rules ensued limiting in many cases what hospitals could charge lower-income patients who were footing their own bills. Meantime, hospitals have been trying to boost revenue by encouraging more patients to pay upfront so they can avoid a lengthy and uncertain collections process.
The California Hospital Assn. says that discounted cash prices are intended for the uninsured, not those who have coverage. Jan Emerson-Shea, a vice president at the industry group, said most hospitals offer a separate discount to insured patients who are willing to pay their portion upfront.
"If you have insurance, you are under that insurance plan's negotiated rate with the hospital," she said.
Read the whole article, I wish more news organizations would run stories that gives us more facts instead of stroking the debate and confusing us more in the process:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/27/business/la-fi-medical-prices-20120527
Like it or not, there are changes afoot, and from what I have seen so far, it has improved instead of worsened. | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/30/2012 9:05:10 AM | Lets see. The new healthcare law says you buy insurance or else you pay us $1000 every year. Now didn't the early gangsters used to go around to businesses and sell insurance and if you didn't buy a policy something always tragic happened. It usually started small with broken windows.
Now I can't see the difference. This is not a tax, but a means of compulsory compliance. What do you think is gone to happen if people still don’t buy insurance and pay the $1000. Well they will now bust your windows and tear down your door, in other words now pay us $1500 or $2000 if you don’t want to play ball.
But this type of crap is also happening on the state level. Here in California we have a bunch of nanny’s that want to make you healthy and also green. All these extra small codes they implement cost money, sometimes lots of money. Not only to make the product, but to design the installation and make all the codes work together.
As for the Supreme Court decision, it doesn’t matter. Most people that have no experience in law know its against your basic freedoms.
As for my opinion, healthcare is the next big bubble to pop. | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/30/2012 9:18:39 AM |
Now I can't see the difference. This is not a tax, but a means of compulsory compliance. What do you think is gone to happen if people still don’t buy insurance and pay the $1000.
Same thing that happens to people that don't pay their taxes, nothing new there...they will have any tax credits withheld, and they will get bill from the IRS which can be partially withheld from your wages. That's a component the right insisted on (before they flip-flopped) to ensure "personal responsibility".
Here in California we have a bunch of nanny’s that want to make you healthy and also green. All these extra small codes they implement cost money, sometimes lots of money. Not only to make the product, but to design the installation and make all the codes work together.
Why do people who are unhealthy and don't have insurance think everyone else has to foot their bill? Doesn't sound like a nanny state, it's more like a daddy state. But as an ex-employer, I for one am glad that many health issues that employees used to try to cover by using work comp is going to stop because there was no other way to get service, and that's a good thing for small business. As for going green, well, get back to me on that when you start opposing subsidies for oil companies.
As for the Supreme Court decision, it doesn’t matter. Most people that have no experience in law know its against your basic freedoms.
Thank Justice Roberts for his "inexperience" with the law. He must have an ulterior motive, right? | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/30/2012 11:19:05 AM |
No need to be a sanctimonious prick. Trying to bully other posters is not the way to have a discussion.
I'll take that as your admission that you never took a Civics class and don't understand even the basics of how how our government works. Your defensiveness is understandable--you're already in over your head.
But the U.S. does have that authority. And you can't change it.
As if more proof were needed . . . The Supreme Court has only as much authority to interpret the Constitution as it's claimed for itself over the years, with the tacit agreement of the people. There are a number of ways the other two branches could nullify a decision by the Court, and I'd be glad to discuss them with another poster.
If it had been John McCain who had won the election and he proposed it, you would be singing its praises.
Of course I would not, and neither would any other conservative. Your opinion of who is and is not a conservative is uninformed.
A survey of 21 constitutional law professers had 19 out of 21 also saying the law should be upheld.
The authors of your survey obviously consulted the wrong constitutional law professors. | |
|
| |
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/30/2012 12:15:17 PM | I'll take that as your admission that you never took a Civics class and don't understand even the basics of how how our government works. Your defensiveness is understandable--you're already in over your head.
In over his head?
I've been reading your posts, Matchlight. You are one misguided individual. Every single one of your post is easy to disprove--the problem is, you don't care about that. When shown the facts, you simply ignore them and continue to post. You have already admitted to this with your posted comment on another thread about grinding the opposition down. You have no interest in honest debate. You post so often it becomes a waste of time to refute them (you can't possible have a job--unless posting misinformation on these and other threads is, in fact, your job).
Nobody could possible be as stupid as you appear to be on the facts unless they are purposely posting falsehoods. So which is it, Matchlight? Are you stupid or are you posting your nonsense on purpose? | |
|
| Awaiting Supreme Court Decision on Health Care Mandate
Posted: 6/30/2012 12:26:12 PM |
In a nutshell, here's what happened. We put insurance companies in charge of making health care decisions. Then we put the government in charge of making insurance decisions. Who do we put in charge of making government decisions??? A bunch of unrealistic ideologues who think they can legislate their way into universal health and prosperity by raising taxes??? Well you know what they say.... shit rolls downhill.... This simply isn't going to make anything more affordable for anyone.... It can't. The system is designed to fail or work marginally at best. But congratulations for buying into the sales pitch, I’m sure it made you feel better to believe that insurance companies have bottomless pockets and wouldn’t think of passing a dime of their ballooning expenses onto you. "Hi I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Sooo very true. Anyone who has worked with the ridiculous amounts of regulations the gov't implements for the simplest tasks should be able to figure that what Motown states here is exactly what we are facing....what goes down, down, down is the quality of care and when cuts are made to meet the "surprise" demands of gov't mandates...quality of care is the first place that takes the hit. Now, are our elected officials in DC signing up for this "healthcare"---? Doubt that. | |
|
|
|
|
Page
4
of
5 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
|
|
Home
login 
