Obamacare Stands

[Scotty2Hotty]

Just so I'm clear. Your visceral reaction to a Supreme Court decision not going in a way that squares with your narrow ideology... is armed revolt... against the United States of America.

 

You believe that the duly elected legislators who passed this legislation in accordance with the congressional rules of the house and senate, signed by duly elected president of the executive branch, and upheld by a, by all counts, conservative leaning Supreme Court (with majority opinion being written by a republican nominee) is grounds for such action. All this based on legislation crafted by the Republican party in the 1980s?

 

Do I have that right?

 

I was mainly stating a historical fact. Your long, run-on sentence points me to which side you favor. What you call narrow ideology, can be considered an oath to some. I believe there to be plenty of domestic enemies, but that's just an opinion.

[Guest Hal]

i work in a non-profit hospital. i see equal parts medicare, medicaid, private insurance, and even people with nothing at all. if the bill truly becomes a reality, and medicare payments are cut, i will have to ration all the lower paying plans and save room for better paying private insurance. not saying i won't take care of those in dire need---fractures, etc. but if you need an elective procedure, and i can fill the surgical time with a better plan--that's what's going to happen. it is what it is. plenty of practices have already stopped accepting medicare

 

Can't blame you at all.

[Guest Hal]

Just so I'm clear. Your visceral reaction to a Supreme Court decision not going in a way that squares with your narrow ideology... is armed revolt... against the United States of America.

 

You believe that the duly elected legislators who passed this legislation in accordance with the congressional rules of the house and senate, signed by duly elected president of the executive branch, and upheld by a, by all counts, conservative leaning Supreme Court (with majority opinion being written by a republican nominee) is grounds for such action. All this based on legislation crafted by the Republican party in the 1980s?

 

Do I have that right?

 

I believe the issue, as Scott would see it, is that the duly elected representatives have not voted with respect to the wishes of the American public. These people are elected to stand as representatives of the people who, as a practical matter, cannot stand for themselves. The ideals of our republic have been slowly whittled away to form a shell which votes based on money and political maneuvering. History has shown that these types of governments can be formed, but they never last. Unfortunately the people of the 18th century could not have foreseen the circumstances with which we now deal. That being said, there is a large movement of people who want to modify our government to more appropriately conform to the fundamental mold. Some believe that goal requires military actions, others still hold to the idea that the vote can change things.

 

In short, you only have a part of that right. The issue exists on a broad spectrum which is inadequately addressed with your above comment.

[iwishiwascool]

 

For purely arguments sake, we could start an entire thread on the flawed system that we call "fair elections"

 

Ask Al Gore about the archaic Electoral College system.

Or research what "open primaries" have done in ending real potential runners campaigns.

Not to mention the "crazy" ideas like what groups like Acorn or the like have done to get "their" president in the office.

 

Combine that with the fact that the average American can name more NFL players than Senators or Congressmen and you start to realize that what we consider a "fair election system" is little more than an illusion to let us sleep better.

 

I'm really not as far out as my post would suggest. Just throwing the opposite side of the argument at you to MAYBE bring you more to the center (where I would really consider myself)

 

Oh I agree. However, I don't think the sanctity of the ACA is really contingent on the validity of the framework of the republic that the founders outlined. You can't claim to be a die hard constitutional patriot in one breath then claim that our representative Republic is (and as a result, always has been) a broken system.

[Scotty2Hotty]

Oh I agree. However, I don't think the sanctity of the ACA is really contingent on the validity of the framework of the republic that the founders outlined. You can't claim to be a die hard constitutional patriot in one breath then claim that our representative Republic is (and as a result, always has been) a broken system.

 

It's not broken by any means. Flawed by agendas and those with no testicular fortitude.

[iwishiwascool]

I was mainly stating a historical fact. Your long, run-on sentence points me to which side you favor. What you call narrow ideology, can be considered an oath to some. I believe there to be plenty of domestic enemies, but that's just an opinion.

 

I'll ignore your ad-hominem critique of my command of the English language.

 

So, again, so I'm clear: You are calling for an armed revolt against "domestic enemies" and don't consider yourself one? Isn't that, by definition, tyranny? They were elected, you were not.

 

Did you threaten to take up arms when the Medicare Prescription Drug Act was pushed through congress via unscrupulous means in 2003?

 

Geezeoman, what a hen house. All we've done is discuss reactionary emotional impulses and not the impetus.

[Guest Hal]

So, again, so I'm clear: You are calling for an armed revolt against "domestic enemies" and don't consider yourself one? Isn't that, by definition, tyranny? They were elected, you were not.

 

No, it is not tyranny. The suggestion would be that a forced removal of the current government is required to reset the balance. That does not install tyranny, it can quite easily install an identical democratic republic. By your logic, the revolution was engineered by tyrants.

[iwishiwascool]

I believe the issue, as Scott would see it, is that the duly elected representatives have not voted with respect to the wishes of the American public. These people are elected to stand as representatives of the people who, as a practical matter, cannot stand for themselves. The ideals of our republic have been slowly whittled away to form a shell which votes based on money and political maneuvering. History has shown that these types of governments can be formed, but they never last. Unfortunately the people of the 18th century could not have foreseen the circumstances with which we now deal. That being said, there is a large movement of people who want to modify our government to more appropriately conform to the fundamental mold. Some believe that goal requires military actions, others still hold to the idea that the vote can change things.

 

In short, you only have a part of that right. The issue exists on a broad spectrum which is inadequately addressed with your above comment.

 

It is not and has never been the job of those elected to vote based on popular opinion. The job of statesmen is to vote for the greater good of the nation. Whether the ACA is or is not, I do not care to say.

 

I agree with the rest. I believe Citizens United exacerbated the unity between money and political agendas on both sides of the aisle.

 

Let's put numbers to "large movement of people who want to modify our government to more appropriately conform to the fundamental mold". I assume you are implying that there is a large number or constitutional fundamentalists who are set to rebel via "military" action?

[Scotty2Hotty]

Tyranny:

1.*arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

2.*the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.

3.*a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.

[Guest Hal]

It is not and has never been the job of those elected to vote based on popular opinion. The job of statesmen is to vote for the greater good of the nation. Whether the ACA is or is not, I do not care to say.

 

I agree with the rest. I believe Citizens United exacerbated the unity between money and political agendas on both sides of the aisle.

 

Let's put numbers to "large movement of people who want to modify our government to more appropriately conform to the fundamental mold". I assume you are implying that there is a large number or constitutional fundamentalists who are set to rebel via "military" action?

 

The job is, and was originally constructed to be, representation of the people of the United States (although that specific term came into usage later). It is not to deny people's rights by popular demand, although it has done so since the beginning. There is no simple way to say that is is or is not correct to bow to popular demand. It is correct to take the popular thoughts into consideration before voting on a particular issue. You may recall one of the reasons that the Revolution began is that the colonies were not represented in the English government. Part of that denial of representation was the denial of even a simple voice of the people inhabiting the colonies. That very point lays the foundation for a government of the people.

 

I wouldn't put a label to the people, or a specific number which cannot be easily obtained, who want the government changed. I would say one example of this phenomenon would be the extreme sections of Tea Party. Keep in mind that I am not saying large is absolute, but rather a subjective term.

[Scotty2Hotty]

I'll ignore your ad-hominem critique of my command of the English language.

 

So, again, so I'm clear: You are calling for an armed revolt against "domestic enemies" and don't consider yourself one? Isn't that, by definition, tyranny? They were elected, you were not.

 

Did you threaten to take up arms when the Medicare Prescription Drug Act was pushed through congress via unscrupulous means in 2003?

 

Geezeoman, what a hen house. All we've done is discuss reactionary emotional impulses and not the impetus.

 

Who was threatening anything? You're reading a little too far past a comment. DHS is hot and heavy on its own theory of civil unrest in the near future.

[iwishiwascool]

Ok. I'm sorry I'm navigating this "debate" like a drunken 5 year old. We've gone from discussing how to reform healthcare with an equitable solution to whether our ruling body is a legitimate entity.

 

I think the context of any debate requires certain constants. If we can't even agree that we need to work in the existing framework of legislature, executive power and judicial oversight and that hitting some sort of reset button is the answer than we aren't going to get anywhere.

 

This is the real world. Sometimes your team wins, sometimes it loses. If your answer to said loss is violence vs. effective use of democracy then a patriot you are not regardless of what your blowhard pundit of choice tells you.

[iwishiwascool]

Tyranny:

1.*arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

2.*the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.

3.*a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.

 

Yeah the cocktail(s) impacted my fingers on that one, I meant traitor/treason.

[Guest Hal]

Ok. I'm sorry I'm navigating this "debate" like a drunken 5 year old. We've gone from discussing how to reform healthcare with an equitable solution to whether our ruling body is a legitimate entity.

 

I think the context of any debate requires certain constants. If we can't even agree that we need to work in the existing framework of legislature, executive power and judicial oversight and that hitting some sort of reset button is the answer than we aren't going to get anywhere.

 

This is the real world. Sometimes your team wins, sometimes it loses. If your answer to said loss is violence vs. effective use of democracy then a patriot you are not regardless of what your blowhard pundit of choice tells you.

 

I agree with the premise that debates should be grounded by certain constraints. I'll also say, this be the internets.

 

People will point to a long train of abuses and usurpation, not a single loss.

[Guest Hal]

Yeah the cocktail(s) impacted my fingers on that one, I meant traitor/treason.

 

Must be in a state of war to levy the charge of treason. Come on now, you can do better. I'm deep into a bottle of Patron, step up your drunken debate skills.

 

I'll admit, drunken you is still more advanced (in terms of debate skills) that 99% of this board.

[iwishiwascool]

Must be in a state of war to levy the charge of treason. Come on now, you can do better. I'm deep into a bottle of Patron, step up your drunken debate skills.

 

I'll admit, drunken you is still more advanced (in terms of debate skills) that 99% of this board.

 

Hasn't a "state or war" been reinterpreted once or twice since WWII.

 

My American Flag emblazoned bottle of Sweedish Vodka (Irony!) is dry. I'm done. My debate skills are better when there is an articulated starting point. Usually the starting point is a bit later than 1776.

 

I can argue that regardless of one's Libertarian views (which I understand, I really do) there are certain realities that exist in our medical system:

 

1.) The Hippocratic Oath and Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 require medical providers to render care.

2.) Number one creates free loaders who wait to enter into the system until their medical need is acute.

3.) We as tax payers and insurance carriers pay for these freeloaders already

4a.) Pre-existing condition clauses suck -especially if you or someone you love has been denied coverage because of one.

4b.) lifetime limits and abrupt dropages suck -especially if you or someone you love has been denied coverage because of one.

5.) Mandating number 4 while still caring for number 2 would allow people to only get coverage when they have a condition and exponentially increase costs.

6.) Nobody want's to pay for freeloaders.

 

So how do we promise all of 4, continue to allow 2, and prevent 5 without exponentially increasing costs to insurance carriers? Mitt dedicated to keep all of the parts of the bill that people like but vowed to eliminate the piece that payed for it.

 

How do any of you constitutional fundamentalists suggest we accomplish this with anything other than an individual mandate or a single payer system?

[TTQ B4U]

 

How do any of you constitutional fundamentalists suggest we accomplish this with anything other than an individual mandate or a single payer system?

 

We accomplish this by getting rid of all the free loaders in the US and instead of making the rest of us pay for them. Put the burden on them for as long as it takes.

 

On food stamps, disabilty or received treatment at the ER but had no means to pay. Then here's your bill that will in turn be worked off. Congratulations, you're a fucking street sweeper now and here's your bag and orange vest.

 

This country and Obama especially offer way to many handouts without assigning the responsibility of the costs associate with them to the people receiving them. Then mandate that they get off their asses and work it off. New rule, if you don't work, you don't eat. Guess what, people will work. Those that refuse, won't be missed.

 

I remember the days before Regan signed Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor law when people would be dumped off to die. Sorry, but guess what, Darwin wins. It's not the hospital or me that is allowing it. Obviously you have no family or friends that gave a shit or had the means so in the end, perhaps it was the right thing to happen. Sucks but it's true. If the above is actually the case, then there's no point in putting the cost of care on me with zero chance of it being recouped.

 

Feel that's harsh? Then perhaps the churches and other charities will kick in. Newsflash, I don't run a fucking charity and we shouldn't be forced to.

 

I'm tired of hearing and seeing fucking FAT ASS people, talking on free cell phones, collecting any number of public assistance dollars not being held accountable for the costs of these programs nor being held responsible for getting their act in order to better their lives. I'm sorry, but this is 2012 and everyone has a chance. Figure it out or die not trying. The rest of us will be better off if those that can't are no longer among us.

 

Obama is master at lowering the bar. He's also a very polished bullshitter. The masses were clearly BS'd and didn't believe those of us that told them we knew better.

 

Obama: This is not a tax, the middle class won't be taxed. Today, the courts are calling it a tax.

Obama: It won't raise the cost of our health insurance premiums; yet premiums continue to rise and we all know they will skyrocket once insurance co's are forced to cover the new mandates in the bill.

Obama: Told everyone that we will be able to keep our current insurance plans if we like them, yet what are the chances employers are going keep offering insurance plans under the new bill? Many if not most will not. They are going to push their employees to the exchanges where the bar is set for the lowest bidder.

Obama: Told us it will be good for our economy, yet even today articles are popping up where companies admit to sitting on cash and not opening up to new hires until now after the election.

Edited June 29, 2012 by TTQ B4U

[99ta]

We accomplish this by getting rid of all the free loaders in the US and instead of making the rest of us pay for them. Put the burden on them for as long as it takes.

 

On food stamps, disabilty or received treatment at the ER but had no means to pay. Then here's your bill that will in turn be worked off. Congratulations, you're a fucking street sweeper now and here's your bag and orange vest.

 

This country and Obama especially offer way to many handouts without assigning the responsibility of the costs associate with them to the people receiving them. Then mandate that they get off their asses and work it off. New rule, if you don't work, you don't eat. Guess what, people will work. Those that refuse, won't be missed.

 

I remember the days before Regan signed Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor law when people would be dumped off to die. Sorry, but guess what, Darwin wins. It's not the hospital or me that is allowing it. Obviously you have no family or friends that gave a shit or had the means so in the end, perhaps it was the right thing to happen. Sucks but it's true. If the above is actually the case, then there's no point in putting the cost of care on me with zero chance of it being recouped.

 

Feel that's harsh? Then perhaps the churches and other charities will kick in. Newsflash, I don't run a fucking charity and we shouldn't be forced to.

 

I'm tired of hearing and seeing fucking FAT ASS people, talking on free cell phones, collecting any number of public assistance dollars not being held accountable for the costs of these programs nor being held responsible for getting their act in order to better their lives. I'm sorry, but this is 2012 and everyone has a chance. Figure it out or die not trying. The rest of us will be better off if those that can't are no longer among us.

 

Obama is master at lowering the bar. He's also a very polished bullshitter. The masses were clearly BS'd and didn't believe those of us that told them we knew better.

 

Obama: This is not a tax, the middle class won't be taxed. Today, the courts are calling it a tax.

Obama: It won't raise the cost of our health insurance premiums; yet premiums continue to rise and we all know they will skyrocket once insurance co's are forced to cover the new mandates in the bill.

Obama: Told everyone that we will be able to keep our current insurance plans if we like them, yet what are the chances employers are going keep offering insurance plans under the new bill? Many if not most will not. They are going to push their employees to the exchanges where the bar is set for the lowest bidder.

Obama: Told us it will be good for our economy, yet even today articles are popping up where companies admit to sitting on cash and not opening up to new hires until now after the election.

 

wheres the like button?

[2011SVT]

It doesn't matter what Obama or anyone else argued the point of the law is. The wording on the law allows for a logical interpretation, in accordance with rule of law, that the penalty exists as a tax. Part of the reason behind this is that the penalty is taken through normal taxation.

 

All of that is explained in the decision, check it out.

 

I definitely saw that and that's where we disagree. It does matter how the administration defended it. (Otherwise why bother to hear arguments?) Roberts engaged in legal sophistry to re-invent the penalty as a tax. That is explained in the dissent:

 

“And the nail in the coffin is that the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, rather than where a tax would be found—in Title IX, containing the Act’s “Revenue Provisions.” In sum, “the terms of [the] act rende[r] it unavoidable,” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448 (1830), that Congress imposed a regulatory penalty, not a tax.

For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives.”

 

Regardless, the fallout from this decision will be interesting. I'm sure the pollsters are busy doing the recalculations. Did this help or hurt Obama and the democrats?

[copperhead]

I'm in the worst age group for all of it, where you can get rammed in the ass by tuition and everyone else in line, and no one gives a fuck. If you want things to be better for your kids, if you want them to have a better education, not spend $600 a semester just on textbooks that are worthless within 5 weeks, and in 4 years end up unable to find a job that is relevant to your field at all, do something about it.

 

Our leaders didn't act poorly*, they acted greedily, but so did we.

 

 

*most leaders

 

The way to fix the college problem is for everyone to boycott the colleges for a while. We currently have TOO MANY college students, which is why prices are out of control. Its simple economics. Right now we have a shortage of truck drivers and we have a surplus of college grads, guess what, a handful of those college grads that now don't have jobs should have skipped college, gotten jobs as truck drivers or something similar that's in demand, and would be better off today.

[copperhead]

I'm going to nominate Justice Roberts for the Troll of the Year Award. He managed to get a very large segment of the country worked up into a frenzy. This will show brightly come time to vote. He named this a tax, in a time when the president made a promise that there would be no new taxes for the middle class. This turns the president into a liar, as the ACA is now one of the largest tax increases in history. Roberts knows that by terming it as such, either the Democrats will lose handily in November and the ACA will be repealed by the GOP, or the public will reelect those that pushed this through, in which case he is still on the winning side. No matter what, he wins.

 

Now my question is, is this judicial activism or the opposite?

[copperhead]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-supreme-court-gives-conservatives-a-consolation-prize/2012/06/28/gJQAWyhY9V_print.html

 

triple

[wagner]

So as a result of the judgement, you are planning on rationing care based on one's ability to pay. How is this different from the way your practice operates now?

 

This is the unintended consequence of this mandate and there will be many more. When this first went through we got an e-mail stating that we needed to “plan for a rise in health care costs from our provider”.

 

Yep, this is a great law, the fat, lazy, and useless get more free stuff, I get to keep working my ass off.

[2pointslow]

Please tell me this guy is talking out of his ass?

 

http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=484646

[wagner]

Please tell me this guy is talking out of his ass?

 

http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=484646

 

Usually that guy is, however he is citing things that are directly in the law. I will give credit where credit is due, it looks like those sneaky crooks wrote this law correctly.

 

Stay calm, all is well, just accept it and you will be fine....