PDA

View Full Version : No matter what happens this morning...



AUTaxMan
06-28-2012, 10:45 AM
and although I may disagree with the result, I do not believe the Justices on the Supreme Court are political hacks. I think they will vote their sincere beliefs on the issue, win or lose. I think they are honorable people with often opposing viewpoints, but I do not think they are corrupt or subject to political pressure.

habsheaven
06-28-2012, 10:57 AM
I agree!

*censored*
06-28-2012, 11:12 AM
I believed that too until Bush v. Gore in 2000.

I do think the judicial branch is far more honorable than the other two though.

AUTaxMan
06-28-2012, 11:15 AM
I believed that too until Bush v. Gore in 2000.

I do think the judicial branch is far more honorable than the other two though.

Have you actually read Bush v Gore? I doubt it.

pghin08
06-28-2012, 11:16 AM
I'm with you. I love the Supreme Court, and the judicial branch as a whole.

AUTaxMan
06-28-2012, 11:23 AM
Now that I'm sure most people who really care have heard the decision, what do you guys think? I'm glad it wasn't decided as a constitutional exercise of commerce clause power. Apparently, though, it means that Congress can pass a bill, claim it's not a tax, and then have it end up being a tax.

pghin08
06-28-2012, 11:28 AM
Now that I'm sure most people who really care have heard the decision, what do you guys think? I'm glad it wasn't decided as a constitutional exercise of commerce clause power. Apparently, though, it means that Congress can pass a bill, claim it's not a tax, and then have it end up being a tax.

Shocked that Roberts was in the majority here, and pretty surprised by the overall ruling.

habsheaven
06-28-2012, 11:34 AM
Huge victory for Obama. Roberts siding with the majority was a surprise though.

*censored*
06-28-2012, 11:56 AM
Roberts sides with the left and Kennedy with the right.

lolwut

pghin08
06-28-2012, 12:00 PM
Roberts sides with the left and Kennedy with the right.

lolwut

To me, that's proof of the superiority of the judicial branch. It probably pained Roberts to rule as he did, but he did what he thought was right according to the duties of his job.

shrewsbury
06-28-2012, 12:05 PM
huge victory?

how?

this is now a tax and nothing else, exactly what we needed to create jobs and help the economy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*censored*
06-28-2012, 12:08 PM
Aside from Kennedy, this article pretty much called it... 3 months ago.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/03/29/obamacare-will-survive-the-supreme-court-heres-why/

*censored*
06-28-2012, 12:09 PM
huge victory?

how?

It's a huge political victory for Obama and Congressional Dems. And a loss for the rest of us.

pghin08
06-28-2012, 12:09 PM
Okay, here's the problem I have with the modern day conservative media. I was on The Blaze just now, because I wanted to make sure that Glenn Beck didn't totally melt down after the ruling, and I see this headline (it's down on the left hand side of the page):

"Swing Vote: Ruling 5-4 with "conservative" Justice Roberts joining the Liberals"

Now I understand, this is Glenn Beck's website, and his job is to get traffic and get noticed. But I have a huge problem with stuff like this, and it's indicative of the way the GOP has gone as a whole. So because Justice Roberts ruled the way he did, he now lacks "conservative" credentials? Clearly this is what the headline is implying, by way of putting quotation marks around the word "conservative". I just can't take stuff like this.

habsheaven
06-28-2012, 12:21 PM
huge victory?

how?

this is now a tax and nothing else, exactly what we needed to create jobs and help the economy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How? By allowing the uninsured to now be insured.

According to one of the latest studies America is 1st in health spending ($8,000 per person, per year) and 27th in life expectancy.

Providing insurance for everyone is going to automatically improve the life expectancy numbers and reduce costs by putting more of the money into preventative health care rather than spending more on treating illnesses that have been ignored because of a lack of insurance.

mrveggieman
06-28-2012, 12:29 PM
How? By allowing the uninsured to now be insured.

According to one of the latest studies America is 1st in health spending ($8,000 per person, per year) and 27th in life expectancy.

Providing insurance for everyone is going to automatically improve the life expectancy numbers and reduce costs by putting more of the money into preventative health care rather than spending more on treating illnesses that have been ignored because of a lack of insurance.


CHURCH!! :love0030::love0030::love0030:

sobersoul
06-28-2012, 12:44 PM
I for one am excited that Sarah Palin will finally be able to recall a Supreme Court decision.

shrewsbury
06-28-2012, 01:00 PM
Providing insurance for everyone is going to automatically improve the life expectancy numbers and reduce costs by putting more of the money into preventative health care rather than spending more on treating illnesses that have been ignored because of a lack of insurance.

so we will have to pay for people to live longer, which equals more tax money.

i don't have an issue helping, but now employers will hire less and all of us that work will pay more taxes.

we can't afford to pay the 300 billion a month to run the government now, so what will we do when more debt is added?

AUTaxMan
06-28-2012, 01:22 PM
Okay, here's the problem I have with the modern day conservative media. I was on The Blaze just now, because I wanted to make sure that Glenn Beck didn't totally melt down after the ruling, and I see this headline (it's down on the left hand side of the page):

"Swing Vote: Ruling 5-4 with "conservative" Justice Roberts joining the Liberals"

Now I understand, this is Glenn Beck's website, and his job is to get traffic and get noticed. But I have a huge problem with stuff like this, and it's indicative of the way the GOP has gone as a whole. So because Justice Roberts ruled the way he did, he now lacks "conservative" credentials? Clearly this is what the headline is implying, by way of putting quotation marks around the word "conservative". I just can't take stuff like this.

Beck totally melted down on the radio. I just heard a minute, but he was killing Roberts. You can listen to his rant on the blaze. Totally worth it.

AUTaxMan
06-28-2012, 01:25 PM
It's a huge political victory for Obama and Congressional Dems. And a loss for the rest of us.

We'll see. It will be interesting how he spins his new tax on the American public. Stole this from a friend:

Everyone should know what this new "tax" from the healthcare law means for them. If you choose to remain uninsured and instead pay the tax: in 2014, you will have to pay 1% of your income or a flat fee of $95 (whichever is greater). In 2015, you will have to pay 2% of your income or a flat fee of $325 (whichever is greater). In 2015, you will have to pay 2.5% of your income or a flat fee of $695 (whichever is greater). Figure it out for your income, someone who makes $50,000 and decides not to insure themself will pay a $1250 tax by 2016! Obama just effectively covertly raised taxes on every American who doesn't have health insurance. How does this help the uninsured? (it doesn't)

duane1969
06-28-2012, 01:39 PM
How? By allowing the uninsured to now be insured.

According to one of the latest studies America is 1st in health spending ($8,000 per person, per year) and 27th in life expectancy.

Providing insurance for everyone is going to automatically improve the life expectancy numbers and reduce costs by putting more of the money into preventative health care rather than spending more on treating illnesses that have been ignored because of a lack of insurance.

There are already programs that provide free or reduced cost health care for the uninsured. What's more, most hospitals are required to treat someone even if they do not have insurance. All this bill does is give government a way to tax the people even more.

And the kicker, even after this goes thru the government will still keep taking money out of our pockets to pay for the other programs as well. I could support a health care bill like this if it included the elimination of health care thru Medicare and Medicaid but it doesn't. Considering the mediocre job that the government has done in providing health care thru Medicaid and Medicare it is pretty ignorant for the people to support yet another health care plan that already has funding problems before it is even enacted.

shrewsbury
06-28-2012, 02:31 PM
duane, great post!

jlzinck
06-28-2012, 03:07 PM
Massachusetts, as the President has said, is the model for this law. Well then everyone should vote for anybody but Obama if that is the case because he is not bright enough to see how bad it is here in Massachusetts.

I have a file with the numbers somewhere but here is an estimate:

A little under 91% of Mass residents has insurace before the law. Just under 96% after it went into effect.

Massachusetts has had the highest % increase in costs since this law was passed.

Fewer doctors are accepting patients with goverment run insurance (Medicare and Mass Health)

Some of the provisions in the National law are good and others are only good in theory like no lifetime limits because "we the people" are going to bear the cost of these new rules, not the insurance companies.

Smaller companies will be taxes if they don't offer insurance and you bet more will NOT offer it. They will pay the 10-50K a year in taxes while saving twice that in not offering insurance. More and more people will be then moved over to state and federal insurances which is a horrible idea.

There are no winners in this decision today and it may in fact cost Mr Obama a 2nd term as more people will be energized against him.

tsjct
06-28-2012, 03:08 PM
To sum it up its a NEW TAX and for the ones who do have insurance get ready for your premiums to go through the roof. As a business owner i am putting a Freeze on what i pay per employee as of now so when the premiums go up they have to pay the difference. Who wins in this?? I say the working middle class will get killed in this new tax.

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 03:09 PM
Massachusetts, as the President has said, is the model for this law. Well then everyone should vote for anybody but Obama if that is the case because he is not bright enough to see how bad it is here in Massachusetts.

I have a file with the numbers somewhere but here is an estimate:

A little under 91% of Mass residents has insurace before the law. Just under 96% after it went into effect.

Massachusetts has had the highest % increase in costs since this law was passed.

Fewer doctors are accepting patients with goverment run insurance (Medicare and Mass Health)

Some of the provisions in the National law are good and others are only good in theory like no lifetime limits because "we the people" are going to bear the cost of these new rules, not the insurance companies.

Smaller companies will be taxes if they don't offer insurance and you bet more will NOT offer it. They will pay the 10-50K a year in taxes while saving twice that in not offering insurance. More and more people will be then moved over to state and federal insurances which is a horrible idea.

There are no winners in this decision today and it may in fact cost Mr Obama a 2nd term as more people will be energized against him.
Why is it a horrible idea?

tsjct
06-28-2012, 03:09 PM
Massachusetts, as the President has said, is the model for this law. Well then everyone should vote for anybody but Obama if that is the case because he is not bright enough to see how bad it is here in Massachusetts.

I have a file with the numbers somewhere but here is an estimate:

A little under 91% of Mass residents has insurace before the law. Just under 96% after it went into effect.

Massachusetts has had the highest % increase in costs since this law was passed.

Fewer doctors are accepting patients with goverment run insurance (Medicare and Mass Health)

Some of the provisions in the National law are good and others are only good in theory like no lifetime limits because "we the people" are going to bear the cost of these new rules, not the insurance companies.

Smaller companies will be taxes if they don't offer insurance and you bet more will NOT offer it. They will pay the 10-50K a year in taxes while saving twice that in not offering insurance. More and more people will be then moved over to state and federal insurances which is a horrible idea.

There are no winners in this decision today and it may in fact cost Mr Obama a 2nd term as more people will be energized against him.

Very well stated

tsjct
06-28-2012, 03:14 PM
Why is it a horrible idea?

Because a lot of states are BROKE and cant afford the bills now. How are they going to pay for this?? How many doctors will say the heck with it and retire? How many hospitals can do the work for free and stay open? This is a horrible bill and it will show and very soon.

indexed
06-28-2012, 03:23 PM
This was worse then taking out the individual for OBAMA. In the original bill the states lost ALL funding if they did not expand Medical coverage. Now the states can opt out. The fed gov't can only fine you a small amount 1% of income or like 95 bucks a person.

In other words the 26 states that sued do not have to comply. They actually won. They will however have to deal with the high unemployment this will cause.

*censored*
06-28-2012, 03:25 PM
Okay.

So Massachusetts is the model for the law. And Massachusetts is failing.

So we should vote for someone other than Obama.

And that person just happens to be the architect of it in Massachusetts?

Am I missing something here?

pghin08
06-28-2012, 03:25 PM
Beck totally melted down on the radio. I just heard a minute, but he was killing Roberts. You can listen to his rant on the blaze. Totally worth it.

To me, that's totally uncalled for. Roberts was just doing his job. He put his politics aside to make the decision he felt the Constitution forced him to do. That's what these justices are there to do. I've always respected Chief Justice Roberts, but this really put him on another level in my opinion. He knew he'd take a verbal beating from a lot of people, but he stuck to his guns.

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 03:31 PM
Because a lot of states are BROKE and cant afford the bills now. How are they going to pay for this?? How many doctors will say the heck with it and retire? How many hospitals can do the work for free and stay open? This is a horrible bill and it will show and very soon.
Why would doctors retire? Why would hospitals not be paid? We have socialized health care in Canada and our doctors get paid...

AUTaxMan
06-28-2012, 03:37 PM
Massachusetts, as the President has said, is the model for this law. Well then everyone should vote for anybody but Obama if that is the case because he is not bright enough to see how bad it is here in Massachusetts.

I have a file with the numbers somewhere but here is an estimate:

A little under 91% of Mass residents has insurace before the law. Just under 96% after it went into effect.

Massachusetts has had the highest % increase in costs since this law was passed.

Fewer doctors are accepting patients with goverment run insurance (Medicare and Mass Health)

Some of the provisions in the National law are good and others are only good in theory like no lifetime limits because "we the people" are going to bear the cost of these new rules, not the insurance companies.

Smaller companies will be taxes if they don't offer insurance and you bet more will NOT offer it. They will pay the 10-50K a year in taxes while saving twice that in not offering insurance. More and more people will be then moved over to state and federal insurances which is a horrible idea.

There are no winners in this decision today and it may in fact cost Mr Obama a 2nd term as more people will be energized against him.

Solid points.

AUTaxMan
06-28-2012, 03:38 PM
Because a lot of states are BROKE and cant afford the bills now. How are they going to pay for this?? How many doctors will say the heck with it and retire? How many hospitals can do the work for free and stay open? This is a horrible bill and it will show and very soon.

A cottage industry of private healthcare is going to spring up. It will be expensive, but it will be the only place you can go to get quality care.

AUTaxMan
06-28-2012, 03:42 PM
Why would doctors retire? Why would hospitals not be paid? We have socialized health care in Canada and our doctors get paid...

I know a lot of doctors, and not one of them supports Obamacare. It directly hits their bottom line, because it will limit what they can get paid to perform certain procedures, regardless of what that service is actually worth.

JustAlex
06-28-2012, 03:49 PM
I for one am excited that Sarah Palin will finally be able to recall a Supreme Court decision.

LOL!!!


Okay.

So Massachusetts is the model for the law. And Massachusetts is failing.

So we should vote for someone other than Obama.

And that person just happens to be the architect of it in Massachusetts?

Am I missing something here?

You sir, are using logic, please don't do it again in a political debate! :rolleyes:



Overall, Bwahahahahahahaha @the GOP and conservatives alike.

You guys campaigned nonstop on this issue spending MILLIONS of dollars on ads and lying to the country on just about everything that is in this law.

Justice has been done today, nuff said!

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 03:55 PM
I know a lot of doctors, and not one of them supports Obamacare. It directly hits their bottom line, because it will limit what they can get paid to perform certain procedures, regardless of what that service is actually worth.
I suppose, but it's setting the value. I mean, if we're talking about life-saving procedures, those are priceless.

What this does for the people is provide health care without a $100,000 bill at the end of it. Medical costs can be crippling. In Canda, my prescriptions aren't covered by the government, but my group benefits through work is a reimbursement program where, for the medication I need, I'm supposed to come up with $2000 a month up front. That's a higher amount than my disability pays me for having the same condition I need that medication for. Under your current system, I would have to pay X to be misdiagnosed the first time, X again to be diagnosed properly plus the $2000 a month for meds. I couldn't possibly do that. Even as it stands, a charity is paying for the VAST majority of my medication. If I was in the US I couldn't even afford to be diagnosed, never mind misdiagnosed and pay for my medication. With the diagnosis, treatment and medication, I'm now in a position where I can start looking for work again (I can't ever work my old job with my condition). Without it, I'd be either struggling through my old job, putting my and others' lives at serious risk, or just sitting on welfare. THAT is what this bill is for. If you look at it short term and say, "Well, doctors are just going to up and quit!" I'd have to say your doctors aren't very smart. I'd take less money over none, wouldn't you? That argument is a scare tactic, whether doctors are for the bill itself or not. Quitting would hit their bottom line even more.

This bill has farther reaching implications than I think even Obama really realizes. When people (especially those who can't afford insurance) get the treatment they need, they're less likely to be long term drains through welfare programs.

I'm not saying it's a perfect bill by any means, but it's not the doom and gloom so many are calling it. There's a stronger argument about it being unconstitutional than anything and that was decided today.

pghin08
06-28-2012, 03:57 PM
I suppose, but it's setting the value. I mean, if we're talking about life-saving procedures, those are priceless.

What this does for the people is provide health care without a $100,000 bill at the end of it. Medical costs can be crippling. In Canda, my prescriptions aren't covered by the government, but my group benefits through work is a reimbursement program where, for the medication I need, I'm supposed to come up with $2000 a month up front. That's a higher amount than my disability pays me for having the same condition I need that medication for. Under your current system, I would have to pay X to be misdiagnosed the first time, X again to be diagnosed properly plus the $2000 a month for meds. I couldn't possibly do that. Even as it stands, a charity is paying for the VAST majority of my medication. If I was in the US I couldn't even afford to be diagnosed, never mind misdiagnosed and pay for my medication. With the diagnosis, treatment and medication, I'm now in a position where I can start looking for work again (I can't ever work my old job with my condition). Without it, I'd be either struggling through my old job, putting my and others' lives at serious risk, or just sitting on welfare. THAT is what this bill is for. If you look at it short term and say, "Well, doctors are just going to up and quit!" I'd have to say your doctors aren't very smart. I'd take less money over none, wouldn't you? That argument is a scare tactic, whether doctors are for the bill itself or not. Quitting would hit their bottom line even more.

This bill has farther reaching implications than I think even Obama really realizes. When people (especially those who can't afford insurance) get the treatment they need, they're less likely to be long term drains through welfare programs.

I'm not saying it's a perfect bill by any means, but it's not the doom and gloom so many are calling it. There's a stronger argument about it being unconstitutional than anything and that was decided today.

Solid post. Hope whatever ailment you have, that you're doing alright!

Wickabee
06-28-2012, 04:26 PM
Solid post. Hope whatever ailment you have, that you're doing alright!
MS. Non-fatal, so I could have it a lot worse. Truth be told, I was one of a few Canadians who saw the downside to socialized health care (there is a reason the Canadian government became concerned with our best young doctors going to the US) until a little over a year ago when I was diagnosed. I think about where I'd be under the current/old US system I almost want to cry. I have government coverage AND health insurance through work and I still couldn't afford proper care and treatment. I'm pretty sure in the US my best option would be to stick a gun in my mouth.

JustAlex
06-28-2012, 04:32 PM
I'm pretty sure in the US my best option would be to stick a gun in my mouth.

Sadly, your post can't even be considered a "joke" since our health care really is that BAD!

Is this going to make it better?

HOPEFULLY!

But unlike the GOP, at the very least the Dems did have a plan to improve Health Care, in the end the GOP wanted nothing more than play endless politics rather than improve one of the most important aspects in a society.

This is why I sometimes hate this country, because our politicians care more about playing games than helping the citizens they are supposed to be serving!

*censored*
06-28-2012, 04:35 PM
You sir, are using logic, please don't do it again in a political debate! :rolleyes:

My apologies. Forgot Gorillawits banned the use of logic here. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

tsjct
06-28-2012, 09:52 PM
One question. How is the USA going to pay for it? I know we will print more money. I love my Country but i fear my gov't. Where does it stop. Can the Gov't now tell us what kind of car to drive, What to eat and what not to eat, What we can set our thermostat in our home at, Etc. Where does it end. This better wake up the independents and vote for whats best for this country in November or our end of democracy as we know it is gone.

JustAlex
06-28-2012, 10:06 PM
FAUX NEWS FAILS.....AGAIN:

nVefGDu8Xfg

LMAO @ this pathetic "News" channel, my goodness do they EVER do anything right!

AUTaxMan
06-28-2012, 10:09 PM
FAUX NEWS FAILS.....AGAIN:

nVefGDu8Xfg

LMAO @ this pathetic "News" channel, my goodness do they EVER do anything right!

CNN was just as bad.

habsheaven
06-28-2012, 10:10 PM
One question. How is the USA going to pay for it? I know we will print more money. I love my Country but i fear my gov't. Where does it stop. Can the Gov't now tell us what kind of car to drive, What to eat and what not to eat, What we can set our thermostat in our home at, Etc. Where does it end. This better wake up the independents and vote for whats best for this country in November or our end of democracy as we know it is gone.

Your government tells you that you must have car insurance. I don't see anyone complaining about that.

AUTaxMan
06-28-2012, 10:11 PM
One question. How is the USA going to pay for it? I know we will print more money. I love my Country but i fear my gov't. Where does it stop. Can the Gov't now tell us what kind of car to drive, What to eat and what not to eat, What we can set our thermostat in our home at, Etc. Where does it end. This better wake up the independents and vote for whats best for this country in November or our end of democracy as we know it is gone.

There is no end. Effectively, the federal power to tax has been turned into what we all feared the commerce clause would. Now, they can tax you for NOT doing whatever they tell you to do.

JustAlex
06-28-2012, 10:11 PM
CNN was just as bad.

Yes they were....FAIL on them as well!

But LOL @ the fact they had a "reporter" at the Supreme Court WITH the official statement and yet they STILL got it wrong!

AUTaxMan
06-28-2012, 10:11 PM
Your government tells you that you must have car insurance. I don't see anyone complaining about that.

Not the federal government.

AUTaxMan
06-28-2012, 10:12 PM
Yes they were....FAIL on them as well!

But LOL @ the fact they had a "reporter" at the Supreme Court WITH the official statement and yet they STILL got it wrong!

Everybody did, because they were all trying to scoop each other in a matter of seconds.

INTIMADATOR2007
06-28-2012, 11:27 PM
Today’s decision on Obamacare was an extra ordinary gesture of patriotism by a brilliant Chief Justice. Please keep in mind that Chief Justice Roberts was the only one with the audacity (cajones) to express his feelings during Obama’s State of the Union speech. Chief Justice Roberts mouthed “Not True” during that speech and express that he felt that Obama is a liar & deceptive individual.
After the speech, Progressives and the lap-dog media went hysterical to say the least. Today, the same lame-stream media Prosocialist political stooges are enthusiastically gloating that Chief Justice Roberts has seen the light. ‘Truth be told’ and it was effectively done so today, Chief Justice Roberts has exposed Obamacare as the largest tax ever in the history of the United States. In doing so, Obama has also been exposed for the liar he is. For all his denials that Obamacare mandate was not a tax, today Obama embraces the Supreme Court Decision that it is infact a Tax ! The hypocrite has been exposed by the Highest Court in the Land and true American patriots will be energized to exercise their right to vote the scumbag out of office.Now he can't run against SCOTUS , can't run on his record and will not defend Obamacare in truth,And has to defend something the majority of the country don't want . The man is toast !
Thank you Chief Justice Roberts...

habsheaven
06-28-2012, 11:30 PM
Today’s decision on Obamacare was an extra ordinary gesture of patriotism by a brilliant Chief Justice. Please keep in mind that Chief Justice Roberts was the only one with the audacity (cajones) to express his feelings during Obama’s State of the Union speech. Chief Justice Roberts mouthed “Not True” during that speech and express that he felt that Obama is a liar & deceptive individual.
After the speech, Progressives and the lap-dog media went hysterical to say the least. Today, the same lame-stream media Prosocialist political stooges are enthusiastically gloating that Chief Justice Roberts has seen the light. ‘Truth be told’ and it was effectively done so today, Chief Justice Roberts has exposed Obamacare as the largest tax ever in the history of the United States. In doing so, Obama has also been exposed for the liar he is. For all his denials that Obamacare mandate was not a tax, today Obama embraces the Supreme Court Decision that it is infact a Tax ! The hypocrite has been exposed by the Highest Court in the Land and true American patriots will be energized to exercise their right to vote the scumbag out of office.
Thank you Chief Justice Roberts...

Nice attempt at spinning that. I applaud your effort. lol

stewart20rulz
06-29-2012, 12:09 AM
It's different. Driving is a priviledge. You do not have to have insurance if you don't have a car to drive. Some people just ride the bus. Could you imagine getting taxed for not having car insurance, even if you didn't need it?

Here's another scenario:

If the gov't forced all of you to buy guns (medical insurance) to defend yourselves or else pay a tax/penalty to help fund the purchase of other guns (insurance plans) for everyone else whether they pay taxes or not, would that be constitutional as well.

I know the miltary defends the country for every citizen regardless if they pay taxes, but my point is you can plug anything in the place of "medical insurance" and the gov't now has the green light to force you to buy any product they may deem you should have or else they can impose a tax on you. Guess we'll see what happens unless the law is repealed after November.


Your government tells you that you must have car insurance. I don't see anyone complaining about that.

AUTaxMan
06-29-2012, 12:19 AM
It's different. Driving is a priviledge. You do not have to have insurance if you don't have a car to drive. Some people just ride the bus. Could you imagine getting taxed for not having car insurance, even if you didn't need it?

Here's another scenario:

If the gov't forced all of you to buy guns (medical insurance) to defend yourselves or else pay a tax/penalty to help fund the purchase of other guns (insurance plans) for everyone else whether they pay taxes or not, would that be constitutional as well.

I know the miltary defends the country for every citizen regardless if they pay taxes, but my point is you can plug anything in the place of "medical insurance" and the gov't now has the green light to force you to buy any product they may deem you should have or else they can impose a tax on you. Guess we'll see what happens unless the law is repealed after November.

Or the government could decide that in order to get healthcare costs down, we need healthier people, so if you don't exercise 3 days a week, you have to pay a tax. Or maybe if you don't buy a Chevy Volt or like automobile, you have to pay a tax.

JustAlex
06-29-2012, 12:22 AM
Quick summary of how we got here:


Dems:....."Hey let's give EVERYONE Health Care, it's the right thing to do."

GOP:....."SOCIALISTS!"

Dems:......"The U.S has a terrible Health Care system, we must do something."

GOP:......."SHUT UP!!!"......"YOU WANT TO KILL OUR GRANDMOTHERS!"

Dems:......"OK, do you have a better plan?"

GOP:.......*Crickets*........"SOCIALISTS, NAZIS, DEATH PANELS!!!"

Dems:....."OK, how about we Compromise?"

GOP:......"Sure, Kill this Bill!"

Dems:....."Um, that's not a compromise.....We're doing this whether you like it or not"

GOP:......"GO AHEAD!....we'll spend MILLIONS of dollars trying to "repeal and replace", of course we're not actually going to replace since we have ZERO ideas of how to fix Health Care, but we sure as heck ain't letting YOU guys win"


And here we are...

35MorrisonFan
06-29-2012, 12:31 AM
Whats scary is that the govt has now learned that they can alter any part of the constitution they want just by slapping a tax on it. Loss for us, win-win for them.

Truth of the matter is just about everything the govt touches crumbles.......

jlzinck
06-29-2012, 08:35 AM
Why is it a horrible idea?

Again...I can only give my opinion from personal experiences here in Massachusetts.

As I said more people will be going to goverment/state plans. Here on Cape Cod, where we already have an older population, more and more doctors are not taking patients with government insurance.

Doctors and hospitals are paid less with govenrment insurance.

My mother in law, who was a teacher for 37 years, kept her private insurance after she retired. They paid quite a lot of money every year for this insurance while all her friends mocked her for not just going on Medicare like they had.

Last November she had to have an aortic replacement. The surgeon she has was at the top oh his field, teaches at Harvard and is only 1 of about 6 doctors that do the surgery with minimal cutting.

About 2 month later she is informed that the city of Boston is forcing her off her private health plan and onto medicare. She can still have the private as a backup but now Medicare is the primary insurance.

It was then told to her that the bump onto Medicare was retractive to July 1 2011.

A couple weeks after this the hospital where she had the surgery called and told her that her private insurance was not paying the bills. She told them what happened and they had to go through the government to collect now.

Now if she had Medicare going into her November surgery should would not have had the same surgeon. Would she have had a competent doctor? I am sure she would have.

So now she is supposed to another surgery on her thyroid. The doctor and surgeon were lined up, but not scheduled before she was forced onto the government insurance. She is afraid to now tell them this in fear they will hand her off to someone else.

This is what she wanted to avoid by paying the $8,000 a year for her private insurance. She now just lost the right to choose where she goes for her medical care.

That's MY reason why this is bad.

jlzinck
06-29-2012, 08:42 AM
Okay.

So Massachusetts is the model for the law. And Massachusetts is failing.

So we should vote for someone other than Obama.

And that person just happens to be the architect of it in Massachusetts?

Am I missing something here?\

If you look into this law the intent was for people to have personal responsibility and pay for thier own insurance and less of a burden to the state. But in a state run my democrats this is not possible.

The Massachusetts governor said this ruling will be a benefit to the ER's of the country. Thing is that since this was started in 2006 MORE people are going to the ER and fewer have reasons to actually go. It's easier and as a society we are lazy.

jlzinck
06-29-2012, 08:59 AM
Your government tells you that you must have car insurance. I don't see anyone complaining about that.

Actually that is just another liberal talking point. Not all states require auto insurance. And guess what....if you don't own a car you don't have to have the insurance where it is required.

habsheaven
06-29-2012, 09:10 AM
Actually that is just another liberal talking point. Not all states require auto insurance. And guess what....if you don't own a car you don't have to have the insurance where it is required.

My point was; everyone uses health care, just as everyone that drives a car has to have insurance. I wasn't speaking about people who do not drive.

jlzinck
06-29-2012, 11:25 AM
But this is not correct. There are states that do not require auto insurance and then there are facists states like Massachusetts that make you get insurance BUT you can't get the lowest price. You...

habsheaven
06-29-2012, 11:31 AM
Really? I had no idea. That is insane. I withdraw my comments on it then.

AUTaxMan
06-29-2012, 12:08 PM
Really? I had no idea. That is insane. I withdraw my comments on it then.

It's true. Only recently (last 10 years or so) did our state start requiring it.

*censored*
06-29-2012, 12:42 PM
California, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire are the ones who don't require it. California and Wisconsin do require proof of financial ability to cover costs in the event of an accident though. And New Hampshire does require it for certain drivers, basically those seen to be a liability via accidents, DUI's, etc.

http://www.ehow.com/list_7253204_states-don_t-require-car-insurance.html

Wickabee
06-29-2012, 01:04 PM
Again...I can only give my opinion from personal experiences here in Massachusetts.

As I said more people will be going to goverment/state plans. Here on Cape Cod, where we already have an older population, more and more doctors are not taking patients with government insurance.

Doctors and hospitals are paid less with govenrment insurance.

My mother in law, who was a teacher for 37 years, kept her private insurance after she retired. They paid quite a lot of money every year for this insurance while all her friends mocked her for not just going on Medicare like they had.

Last November she had to have an aortic replacement. The surgeon she has was at the top oh his field, teaches at Harvard and is only 1 of about 6 doctors that do the surgery with minimal cutting.

About 2 month later she is informed that the city of Boston is forcing her off her private health plan and onto medicare. She can still have the private as a backup but now Medicare is the primary insurance.

It was then told to her that the bump onto Medicare was retractive to July 1 2011.

A couple weeks after this the hospital where she had the surgery called and told her that her private insurance was not paying the bills. She told them what happened and they had to go through the government to collect now.

Now if she had Medicare going into her November surgery should would not have had the same surgeon. Would she have had a competent doctor? I am sure she would have.

So now she is supposed to another surgery on her thyroid. The doctor and surgeon were lined up, but not scheduled before she was forced onto the government insurance. She is afraid to now tell them this in fear they will hand her off to someone else.

This is what she wanted to avoid by paying the $8,000 a year for her private insurance. She now just lost the right to choose where she goes for her medical care.

That's MY reason why this is bad.
So it's the particulars of this bill that you have a problem with and not socialized health care itself?

ensbergcollector
06-29-2012, 01:08 PM
Your government tells you that you must have car insurance. I don't see anyone complaining about that.

you have to have car insurance to protect other people, not yourself. what is mandatory is liability coverage which will cover someone else's vehicle but not your own in the case of an accident. not comparable. if they required everyone have full coverage then i would see the parallel.

mrveggieman
06-29-2012, 01:16 PM
To all the armchair politicians who hate anything to do with president obama do you have a better idea for healthcare? Or are you ok with survivial of the fittest and if you get sick and have no health care you are out of luck? If you are ok with that keep in mind it could be your family member or even you that needs treatment only to get denied because of lack of coverage. Everyone in congress who votes against health care for all already has their health insurance paid for. Guess who foots the bill. The same tax payers that they don't want to have the insurance in the first place. Isn't that a piece of irony. I say if the republicons dosen't want us to have health insurance the first thing they should do is to discontinue their own health care.

ensbergcollector
06-29-2012, 01:27 PM
To all the armchair politicians who hate anything to do with president obama do you have a better idea for healthcare? Or are you ok with survivial of the fittest and if you get sick and have no health care you are out of luck? If you are ok with that keep in mind it could be your family member or even you that needs treatment only to get denied because of lack of coverage. Everyone in congress who votes against health care for all already has their health insurance paid for. Guess who foots the bill. The same tax payers that they don't want to have the insurance in the first place. Isn't that a piece of irony. I say if the republicons dosen't want us to have health insurance the first thing they should do is to discontinue their own health care.

you really need to get off the idea that if people are opposed to something then they are just hating on obama. there are numerous aspects of this "plan" that are dumb.

we are going to fine people who don't have insurance is idiotic. if you have ever had to get private insurance that wasn't provided by your employer you know how expensive it is. Some people will not have the income to pay that. so how in the world is fining them a good idea?

also, when nearly every doctor, pharmacist, and medical professional I know thinks it is a bad idea and will lead to higher costs across the board, i struggle to think it is a good idea.

you are so busy claiming bias on everyone that you ignore your own. republicans do not want people to be without insurance. that is an asinine comment. i easily fall in the lower to lower middle class range and my premiums are going to increase a lot. tell me how increasing premiums on everyone is helpful. you know the only people who are benefitting? the people who currently don't pay for insurance. everyone currently paying are going to pay more.

mrveggieman
06-29-2012, 01:34 PM
you really need to get off the idea that if people are opposed to something then they are just hating on obama. there are numerous aspects of this "plan" that are dumb.

we are going to fine people who don't have insurance is idiotic. if you have ever had to get private insurance that wasn't provided by your employer you know how expensive it is. Some people will not have the income to pay that. so how in the world is fining them a good idea?

also, when nearly every doctor, pharmacist, and medical professional I know thinks it is a bad idea and will lead to higher costs across the board, i struggle to think it is a good idea.

you are so busy claiming bias on everyone that you ignore your own. republicans do not want people to be without insurance. that is an asinine comment. i easily fall in the lower to lower middle class range and my premiums are going to increase a lot. tell me how increasing premiums on everyone is helpful. you know the only people who are benefitting? the people who currently don't pay for insurance. everyone currently paying are going to pay more.

So if your beloved republicans dont want to people uninsured please show us their proposed health care plans for the uninsured.

ensbergcollector
06-29-2012, 01:36 PM
So if your beloved republicans dont want to people uninsured please show us their proposed health care plans for the uninsured.

you got me, all republicans want people uninsured. the fact that you actually think that reminds me why i stopped posting in here.

mrveggieman
06-29-2012, 01:43 PM
you got me, all republicans want people uninsured. the fact that you actually think that reminds me why i stopped posting in here.


Not all just the ones that you vote for. :thumb:

ensbergcollector
06-29-2012, 01:45 PM
Not all just the ones that you vote for. :thumb:

wow, you have some real issues you know that? tell you what? i'm going to bet you can't name me one person I have voted for outside of presidential elections. you seem the expert on everyone's voting habits and yet you know absolutely nothing about me.

jlzinck
06-29-2012, 01:47 PM
So it's the particulars of this bill that you have a problem with and not socialized health care itself?

I have an issue with the people that voted for it that have no clue what was in it. I have issues with the fact that the Massachusetts members of Congress voted for it when it would have a negative impact on the people they represent (The companies and employees of medical equipment companies not to mention we already had a healthcare plan). I have an issue with the face that becuase of this plan more people will be forced onto government sponsored heath insurance. I have an issue with socialized healthcare in general only as it effects people that I know who live in other countries.

My wife works for an animal rights non profit. The have hundreds of international employees from countries with socialized healthcare. This is also an organization with about 90% of the employees having liberal viewpoints. The international employees I have talked to have say the health care is great if you are healthy. It's very cumbersome if you are not.

One woman was trying to get pregnant. The French government would pay for 2 treatments. OK fair enough but the donor of the sperm HAD to have the same type of features (Hair and eye color and skin complexion) as the father of the child. If the treatment did not work then that was it. Furthermore they would not allow a surrogate for some reason (Not healthcare related). Are you kidding me? Donors HAVE to have the same features??

She went outside of France and paif for the treatment herself and now these 2 people who have origins in the nothern most parts of Africa have a beautiful baby boy who looks like me. Blond hair and blue eyes. And they could not be happier.

It's not like there is no healthcare in this country for people who need it.

It's just that everyone wants things handed to them on a silver platter.

Wickabee
06-29-2012, 01:59 PM
I have an issue with the people that voted for it that have no clue what was in it. I have issues with the fact that the Massachusetts members of Congress voted for it when it would have a negative impact on the people they represent (The companies and employees of medical equipment companies not to mention we already had a healthcare plan). I have an issue with the face that becuase of this plan more people will be forced onto government sponsored heath insurance. I have an issue with socialized healthcare in general only as it effects people that I know who live in other countries.

My wife works for an animal rights non profit. The have hundreds of international employees from countries with socialized healthcare. This is also an organization with about 90% of the employees having liberal viewpoints. The international employees I have talked to have say the health care is great if you are healthy. It's very cumbersome if you are not.

One woman was trying to get pregnant. The French government would pay for 2 treatments. OK fair enough but the donor of the sperm HAD to have the same type of features (Hair and eye color and skin complexion) as the father of the child. If the treatment did not work then that was it. Furthermore they would not allow a surrogate for some reason (Not healthcare related). Are you kidding me? Donors HAVE to have the same features??

She went outside of France and paif for the treatment herself and now these 2 people who have origins in the nothern most parts of Africa have a beautiful baby boy who looks like me. Blond hair and blue eyes. And they could not be happier.

It's not like there is no healthcare in this country for people who need it.

It's just that everyone wants things handed to them on a silver platter.
I have to disagree. I felt the healthcare was more a burden until I got sick. Now, because of that healthcare, I'm in a position to look for a new job (can't do my old one) after some time on disability instead of on welfare, which is where I'd be if I was relying on my "insurance" through work. Sure they reimburse me, but I still have to come up with thousands of dollars a month, which I can't do.

tpeichel
06-29-2012, 03:23 PM
To all the armchair politicians who hate anything to do with president obama do you have a better idea for healthcare? Or are you ok with survivial of the fittest and if you get sick and have no health care you are out of luck? If you are ok with that keep in mind it could be your family member or even you that needs treatment only to get denied because of lack of coverage. Everyone in congress who votes against health care for all already has their health insurance paid for. Guess who foots the bill. The same tax payers that they don't want to have the insurance in the first place. Isn't that a piece of irony. I say if the republicons dosen't want us to have health insurance the first thing they should do is to discontinue their own health care.

The government started us down this road when they passed the law requiring hospitals to treat anyone who came through their door, regardless of their ability to pay. Before the law was passed, people who didn't have health insurance paid out of pocket or went to a private charity hospital.

Unsurprisingly, the cost of healthcare has been rising 9% per year ever since the law was passed as premiums increased to cover the cost-shifting from non-payers to payers.

The true irony is that the government passed Obamacare to deal with the cost-shifting problem that they created.

JustAlex
06-29-2012, 03:56 PM
I've been healthy my whole life, I've NEVER been to the hospital ever since I was born...TRUE STORY!

I've always told my loved ones to NEVER take me to the hospital unless I am literally DYING!

For my 24 years of life I have NEVER had Health insurance...

But I'm not so deluded as to think that there won't come a day when something might happen to me and I might have to be rushed to the ER or something similar.

Then what?

I won't be able to pay the bills and I'll have to go bankrupt, it's that simple, thus creating an even bigger burden to the taxpayers.....or worse I get cancer/incurable disease and my life is literally OVER!


The U.S HAS FAILED AS A FIRST WORLD COUNTRY!!!

This should've been resolved YEARS AGO, but when you live in a country whose main objective is PROFITS the last thing you care about is the welfare of your citizens.

People wonder why so many Americans BASH America???


This Issue is just the tip of the iceberg!

AUTaxMan
06-29-2012, 03:57 PM
The U.S HAS FAILED AS A FIRST WORLD COUNTRY!!!

This should've been resolved YEARS AGO, but when you live in a country whose main objective is PROFITS the last thing you care about is the welfare of your citizens.

People wonder why so many Americans BASH America???


This Issue is just the tip of the iceberg!

If you truly believe this, then you should view all other countries as failures as well, since this is the most prosperous nation with the wealthiest poor in the history of the world.

JustAlex
06-29-2012, 04:17 PM
If you truly believe this, then you should view all other countries as failures as well, since this is the most prosperous nation with the wealthiest poor in the history of the world.

You know what?

I don't care about being rich, I don't care about being the "most prosperous nation".

Because we can't even figure out how to properly give health care to our people.....And that's NOT ALL

Life Expectancy: the U.S is #38!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Education: The U.S is behind almost every European country in Science, Math, Reading....it's AN EMBARRASSMENT....that the "Most prosperous" country has such mediocre grade school education!

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_mat_lit-education-mathematical-literacy

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_rea_lit-education-reading-literacy

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_sci_lit-education-scientific-literacy



When I was a little kid I didn't care about money and I still don't care about money, happiness and a healthy life is all I want or need!

JustAlex
06-29-2012, 04:38 PM
LOL, I was looking closely at the Life Expectancy by country list....

Communist Cuba has a better Life expectancy than the U.S!

HAHAHA, Epic irony at it's best!

shrewsbury
06-29-2012, 04:39 PM
who wants to live that long in cuba?????

MadMan1978
06-29-2012, 04:53 PM
Okay.

So Massachusetts is the model for the law. And Massachusetts is failing.

So we should vote for someone other than Obama.

And that person just happens to be the architect of it in Massachusetts?

Am I missing something here?

good point

MadMan1978
06-29-2012, 04:55 PM
wow, you have some real issues you know that? tell you what? i'm going to bet you can't name me one person I have voted for outside of presidential elections. you seem the expert on everyone's voting habits and yet you know absolutely nothing about me.


I would bet you vote 90% Republican in most elections

ensbergcollector
06-29-2012, 05:16 PM
I would bet you vote 90% Republican in most elections

You would be wrong. On a national level you are pretty close, on a local it is closer to 60/40.

I would be perfectly happy if I never read another "i know what you really think" post on here.

MadMan1978
06-29-2012, 05:18 PM
You would be wrong. On a national level you are pretty close, on a local it is closer to 60/40.

I would be perfectly happy if I never read another "i know what you really think" post on here.
I leave local out
meaning I would count in dog catcher catcher or tax collector....

I am thinking Federal, and state only

Wickabee
06-29-2012, 05:52 PM
who wants to live that long in cuba?????
So it's okay to be a most prosperous nation on earth while having a lower life expectancy than Cuba because Cuba sucks?

Oh, and to answer your question, around 11,000,000 Cubans.

AUTaxMan
06-29-2012, 06:16 PM
You know what?

I don't care about being rich, I don't care about being the "most prosperous nation".

Because we can't even figure out how to properly give health care to our people.....And that's NOT ALL

Life Expectancy: the U.S is #38!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Education: The U.S is behind almost every European country in Science, Math, Reading....it's AN EMBARRASSMENT....that the "Most prosperous" country has such mediocre grade school education!

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_mat_lit-education-mathematical-literacy

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_rea_lit-education-reading-literacy

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_sci_lit-education-scientific-literacy



When I was a little kid I didn't care about money and I still don't care about money, happiness and a healthy life is all I want or need!

That life expectancy table is a terrible demonstration of how bad your country is. All first world countries have pretty much the same life expectancy.

As for education, it will always be bad as long as certain segments of our society fail to assign value to it. Education is directly related to parental involvement. As the nuclear family has broken down over the last half-century, so has our education system. Government cannot fix that, regardless of how much money it throws at schools.

Wickabee
06-29-2012, 06:33 PM
Your education system's problems have nothing to do with throwing money at it and everything to do with a nation that can't even decide what proper education is.
Your education system has turned into a tug'o'war between the left and right. I'd say it's the kids who suffer, but it's your whole nation that suffers. Until you guys figure out that your children are not political pawns and stop treating them as such, your education system is going to be a laughing stock.
I'm sorry.

JustAlex
06-29-2012, 06:38 PM
That life expectancy table is a terrible demonstration of how bad your country is. All first world countries have pretty much the same life expectancy.

If I lived in Japan I would be expected to live 4.4 more years

If I lived in Sweden I would be expected to live 2.7 more years

If I lived in Canada I would be expected to live 2.5 more years


Now this might seem like a small amount, but let me ask you, if you were dying and someone tells you, how would you like to live 2-4 more years?

Of course you would say YES, especially if you love life the way most people do.


There are NO EXCUSES, how can we have so much resources, so much money, so much intelligence and yet we are #38 in Life expectancy?

It doesn't make sense!

WE HAVE FAILED!

We are NOT #1, we are NOT the best, far from it, and the sooner we realize that and stop chanting "USA, USA, USA", we can begin to start fixing these problems.


Let's STOP going to War with the world!

Let's give our citizens the proper Health Care they deserve.

Let's put more money on fixing our communities, schools, hospitals so we can have a better life.


Why is this so hard????

We have more money than any other nation......WHY can't we figure it out!!!

AUTaxMan
06-29-2012, 06:41 PM
If I lived in Japan I would be expected to live 4.4 more years

If I lived in Sweden I would be expected to live 2.7 more years

If I lived in Canada I would be expected to live 2.5 more years


Now this might seem like a small amount, but let me ask you, if you were dying and someone tells you, how would you like to live 2-4 more years?

Of course you would say YES, especially if you love life the way most people do.


There are NO EXCUSES, how can we have so much resources, so much money, so much intelligence and yet we are #38 in Life expectancy?

It doesn't make sense!

WE HAVE FAILED!

We are NOT #1, we are NOT the best, far from it, and the sooner we realize that and stop chanting "USA, USA, USA", we can begin to start fixing these problems.


Let's STOP going to War with the world!

Let's give our citizens the proper Health Care they deserve.

Let's put more money on fixing our communities, schools, hospitals so we can have a better life.


Why is this so hard????

We have more money than any other nation......WHY can't we figure it out!!!

Maybe the fed should just print 50 trillion dollars and make it rain all over the country. That would solve all of our problems.

Wickabee
06-29-2012, 06:44 PM
Maybe the fed should just print 50 trillion dollars and make it rain all over the country. That would solve all of our problems.
That's a pretty typical response for someone who has no argument.

Face it he's right, and it has nothing to do with money.

AUTaxMan
06-29-2012, 07:51 PM
That's a pretty typical response for someone who has no argument.

Face it he's right, and it has nothing to do with money.

That exactly the point I made above. His only solution seems to be having the government take care of you from cradle to grave, which does require money.

Wickabee
06-29-2012, 08:00 PM
That exactly the point I made above. His only solution seems to be having the government take care of you from cradle to grave, which does require money.
Ok, here's the thing that a lot of Republicans/Conservatives don't seem to get.

If you spend money on education, you will spend less on Medicare and Welfare. Conversly, if you spend less on education, you will spend more on medicare and welfare.

If you spend on medicare, you will spend less on welfare. If you spend less on medicare, you will spend more on welfare.

If you completely cut welfare, you will pay more in policing costs.

But for some reason, the republicans want to cut education, health, welfare AND policing. If that happens you'll have a bunch of rich people stepping over uneducated, sick, homeless criminals.

Of course, because there isn't a direct cause-and-effect, Republicans ignore logic and go with CUT CUT CUT!

Then they wonder why the rest of the world thinks the US, while good for entertainment, is a stupid country.*


*(not my opinion, but if you think it doesn't exist, I have a bridge to sell you)

JustAlex
06-29-2012, 08:13 PM
Ok, here's the thing that a lot of Republicans/Conservatives don't seem to get.

If you spend money on education, you will spend less on Medicare and Welfare. Conversly, if you spend less on education, you will spend more on medicare and welfare.

If you spend on medicare, you will spend less on welfare. If you spend less on medicare, you will spend more on welfare.

If you completely cut welfare, you will pay more in policing costs.

But for some reason, the republicans want to cut education, health, welfare AND policing. If that happens you'll have a bunch of rich people stepping over uneducated, sick, homeless criminals.

Of course, because there isn't a direct cause-and-effect, Republicans ignore logic and go with CUT CUT CUT!

Couldn't have said it better, the GOP wants to CUT everything, they don't care about Education, welfare, or health care.

Why would they?

The GOP caters to the RICH...

Their biggest plans currently include:

-Cutting Taxes to the wealthiest Americans (Despite the fact that the Wealthiest Americans already have one of the LOWEST tax rates in the WORLD!)

-Making abortion illegal......Seriously, why is this even an issue in these cash strapped times?

-Stopping Gays from getting married.......Same as above.

-Repealing "ObamaCare"......Again they have ZERO solutions, but since they HATE Obama to the core, they're obsessed about repealing this.


So there you go, this is what the GOP brings to the table, cut everything, make the Wealthiest Americans wealthier, and strike down social issues such as abortion and gay marriage.



Then they wonder why the rest of the world thinks the US, while good for entertainment, is a stupid country.*


*(not my opinion, but if you think it doesn't exist, I have a bridge to sell you)

LOL, it's amazing some of them don't get it, they can't see why everyone outside the U.S keeps making fun of America and Americans conversely.

It's because other First world countries don't do the laughably embarrassing things we do, they have progressed with the times, we are still living in the past wondering why things have gone south so fast....

Wickabee
06-29-2012, 08:18 PM
Don't get me wrong, I love America. I just can't stand what Americans have done to it.

JustAlex
06-29-2012, 08:28 PM
Don't get me wrong, I love America. I just can't stand what Americans have done to it.

SAME!

I love our movies, music, sports, food, all of our culture!

I like living here, I LOVE the major cities, I've been to NY, DC, Chicago, Phoenix, Atlanta.....they're all great cities with plenty of things to do and I would recommend any foreigner to visit the U.S, they'll have a blast and most of our citizens are great folks who mean no harm.

But all the stupid things we continue to do....it almost offsets all the good points we have to offer :(:

habsheaven
06-29-2012, 08:31 PM
I get a kick out of Romney saying he is going to repeal Obamacare on his first day in office. I hope the voters are wise to this lie. Romney can't repeal Obamacare unless he gets a super majority in the Senate and even then the CBO will prevent it.

tpeichel
06-29-2012, 08:38 PM
Ok, here's the thing that a lot of Republicans/Conservatives don't seem to get.

If you spend money on education, you will spend less on Medicare and Welfare. Conversly, if you spend less on education, you will spend more on medicare and welfare.

If you spend on medicare, you will spend less on welfare. If you spend less on medicare, you will spend more on welfare.

If you completely cut welfare, you will pay more in policing costs.

But for some reason, the republicans want to cut education, health, welfare AND policing. If that happens you'll have a bunch of rich people stepping over uneducated, sick, homeless criminals.

Of course, because there isn't a direct cause-and-effect, Republicans ignore logic and go with CUT CUT CUT!

Then they wonder why the rest of the world thinks the US, while good for entertainment, is a stupid country.*


*(not my opinion, but if you think it doesn't exist, I have a bridge to sell you)

Our per pupil spending is one of the highest in the world already, so why would spending more money be the solution?

Wickabee
06-29-2012, 08:41 PM
Our per pupil spending is one of the highest in the world already, so why would spending more money be the solution?
Oh I know that, and no more money isn't the solution, but neither is less money.
Better spending your money is the solution. That means don't throw out textbooks because they don't reference Jesus enough (and other such d-baggery)

JustAlex
06-29-2012, 09:14 PM
Our per pupil spending is one of the highest in the world already, so why would spending more money be the solution?
I have to look into that, but if it really is true, then it's very clear the money isn't being spent wisely.

I went to a high school which was severely over crowded.....Remember I'm still in my early 20s so I was still in High School 6 years ago...

Anyways, the classrooms didn't have enough desks, the textbooks were in terrible condition, and I won't go into the the meticulous things such as the condition of the actual school, cafeteria, etc.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not really complaining about the education, but when you have an atmosphere such as that, it's no wonder why more than 40% did NOT graduate.

cardmasters
06-29-2012, 10:03 PM
The only way we can get afforable healthcare is if we can take better care of our bodies. And here is why japan lives 4.4 year more than americans

3.1 percent obesity

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html

america 33% and raising

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

AUTaxMan
06-29-2012, 11:20 PM
I have to look into that, but if it really is true, then it's very clear the money isn't being spent wisely.

I went to a high school which was severely over crowded.....Remember I'm still in my early 20s so I was still in High School 6 years ago...

Anyways, the classrooms didn't have enough desks, the textbooks were in terrible condition, and I won't go into the the meticulous things such as the condition of the actual school, cafeteria, etc.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not really complaining about the education, but when you have an atmosphere such as that, it's no wonder why more than 40% did NOT graduate.

40% did not graduate because they did not want to graduate. You can sleep through high school and get a diploma.

Wickabee
06-29-2012, 11:23 PM
40% did not graduate because they did not want to graduate. You can sleep through high school and get a diploma.
What? With no child left behind I thought everyone in the US graduated!

shrewsbury
06-29-2012, 11:37 PM
wickabee, quality over quantity

and how many cubans left cuba for america?
how many americans left america for cuba?

Wickabee
06-30-2012, 12:45 AM
wickabee, quality over quantity

and how many cubans left cuba for america?
how many americans left america for cuba?
Oh, I understand the logic, I just cannot agree with it.

shrewsbury
06-30-2012, 01:29 AM
no problem there

there is no doubt that health care is messed up here on some levels, but for the middle class average folk it works pretty well most of the time.

I think the issue is there are too many unemployed and too many people receiving benefits that should not be. If this was all worked out, health care would not be such an issue.
I don't see how imposing a tax that will either hinder hiring in small business, supplying health care coverage in big business, and imposing more taxes on the middle class is the answer to all this.

Zimbow
06-30-2012, 01:42 AM
Don't get me wrong, I love America. I just can't stand what Americans have done to it.

+1

I agree with you Wickabee.

habsheaven
06-30-2012, 07:24 AM
Don't get me wrong, I love America. I just can't stand what Americans have done to it.

To be fair, I don't think what is happening in America is the fault of Americans in the way that most look at it. I think a lot of the blame can be placed on the system of government they have.

Just as we have seen communism bring down a great nation like the USSR, on the other side of the spectrum I think America's extreme version of democracy has some drawbacks too. I think the most successful countries can be found to have all the freedoms of a democracy but they also have limitations on some of those freedoms. In America freedom is paramount, sometimes to the detriment of leaders being able to right a sinking ship.

Just something to think about.

MadMan1978
06-30-2012, 08:50 AM
https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/292366_428251027215761_1061485663_n.jpg

MadMan1978
06-30-2012, 08:51 AM
40% did not graduate because they did not want to graduate. You can sleep through high school and get a diploma.
NOT in this state....

tpeichel
06-30-2012, 11:25 AM
I get a kick out of Romney saying he is going to repeal Obamacare on his first day in office. I hope the voters are wise to this lie. Romney can't repeal Obamacare unless he gets a super majority in the Senate and even then the CBO will prevent it.

Romney wouldn't need a super majority since they can use the budget reconciliation process to repeal it.

Wickabee
06-30-2012, 11:30 AM
To be fair, I don't think what is happening in America is the fault of Americans in the way that most look at it. I think a lot of the blame can be placed on the system of government they have.

Just as we have seen communism bring down a great nation like the USSR, on the other side of the spectrum I think America's extreme version of democracy has some drawbacks too. I think the most successful countries can be found to have all the freedoms of a democracy but they also have limitations on some of those freedoms. In America freedom is paramount, sometimes to the detriment of leaders being able to right a sinking ship.

Just something to think about.
I agree. When I said "Americans" I meant over the course of history. Recently blame can be placed just as much on the entertainment industry as the government. Of course, recently, it's difficult to tell the two apart.

INTIMADATOR2007
06-30-2012, 12:04 PM
I wonder if Obama care will cover the treatment of "Liberalism" . The disease is killing the country .

habsheaven
06-30-2012, 03:00 PM
Romney wouldn't need a super majority since they can use the budget reconciliation process to repeal it.

No they cannot. The CBO projections make repeal a non-starter. Check it out.

tpeichel
06-30-2012, 03:21 PM
No they cannot. The CBO projections make repeal a non-starter. Check it out.

Budgeting is fair game in the reconciliation process. Remove the funding for Obamacare and it's completely derailed, right? If you have a link I'd be curious to see the analysis you're reading.

habsheaven
06-30-2012, 03:32 PM
Budgeting is fair game in the reconciliation process. Remove the funding for Obamacare and it's completely derailed, right? If you have a link I'd be curious to see the analysis you're reading.

I do not have a link for my analysis. My understanding is that the CBO (the authority on the matter) has determined that the Obamacare will save $180 Billion? over the next 10 years or so and by repealing it Romney would be adding that $180 billion to the deficit. I do not know why, or under what law, but apparently he is not allowed to do such a thing. If he can somehow get a budget passed that de-funds it that may be a possibility. Then you have to ask yourself; what should his priorities be in November? Is he going to spend the first year in office getting rid of something he was in favour of in Mass? How much political capital is he going to waste? When will he get time for fixing the unemployment rate? Just watch and see, IF he gets elected.

tpeichel
06-30-2012, 04:00 PM
I do not have a link for my analysis. My understanding is that the CBO (the authority on the matter) has determined that the Obamacare will save $180 Billion? over the next 10 years or so and by repealing it Romney would be adding that $180 billion to the deficit. I do not know why, or under what law, but apparently he is not allowed to do such a thing. If he can somehow get a budget passed that de-funds it that may be a possibility. Then you have to ask yourself; what should his priorities be in November? Is he going to spend the first year in office getting rid of something he was in favour of in Mass? How much political capital is he going to waste? When will he get time for fixing the unemployment rate? Just watch and see, IF he gets elected.

When did the CBO projection say a ten year savings of $180 billion?

Every time they do a new 10 year projection of Obamacare savings, the amount saved goes down because they backloaded so much of the spending to make the initial CBO estimates look better. At some point here I wouldn't be surprised if the 10 year projection goes negative.

After all, it defies logic that we are going to be providing more healthcare and that the cost is going to go down.

habsheaven
06-30-2012, 04:27 PM
When did the CBO projection say a ten year savings of $180 billion?

Every time they do a new 10 year projection of Obamacare savings, the amount saved goes down because they backloaded so much of the spending to make the initial CBO estimates look better. At some point here I wouldn't be surprised if the 10 year projection goes negative.

After all, it defies logic that we are going to be providing more healthcare and that the cost is going to go down.

First, how does the government spend more on health care if everyone is covered by insurance? Second, logically if people are covered they will address their health concerns before they become serious and reduce the need for medical treatment in the future. Hence the phrase, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Finally, I am not aware of anyone disputing the CBOs numbers with the exception of the odd republican who in all probability knows better.

shrewsbury
07-01-2012, 12:37 AM
no decrease at all,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/10/medicare-trustee-obamacare-will-increase-the-deficit-by-as-much-as-527-billion/


The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Obamacare will reduce the deficit, by coupling a multi-trillion-dollar expansion of federal health spending with cuts to Medicare and higher taxes. Now, a new study by a Medicare trustee suggests that the law will actually increase deficits, over the next ten years, by between $346 and $527 billion.

habsheaven
07-01-2012, 08:47 AM
no decrease at all,

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/04/10/medicare-trustee-obamacare-will-increase-the-deficit-by-as-much-as-527-billion/

You can posts partisan links all day misconstruing the numbers. The fact remains the CBO is the only voice that counts.

MadMan1978
07-01-2012, 08:52 AM
I wonder if Obama care will cover the treatment of "Liberalism" . The disease is killing the country .


yeah caring for people is such a disease we should all find the conservative infection as the cure...

tpeichel
07-01-2012, 01:27 PM
You can posts partisan links all day misconstruing the numbers. The fact remains the CBO is the only voice that counts.

Reality counts. Take a look at the original projections for Medicare and Social Security. Take a look at the original projections for Romney Care. They were all significantly low.