It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court debates the future of Obamacare

page: 13
24
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Flatfish


I don't believe that most politicians are inherently corrupt,

I believe the root of the corruption you speak of is administered by corporate and special interest lobbyist and it's our fault for allowing it.

I'm convinced that until such time as we outlaw paid lobbying it all it's forms, the corruption will continue. It's insane for us to believe that we can continue to allow corporate lawyers to literally write the legislation being adopted by Congress and expect that legislation to be in the best interest of the people or our nation.

I couldn't agree more! And that's exactly why I'm in favor of a truly universal, single-payer, not-for-profit, Medicare-for-all system that would provide basic coverage to everyone. Seeing how corporation's sole purpose is to generate profits, I'm confident that the moment we remove profit from healthcare insurance coverage, they'll run for the hills taking their corrupt influence with them.



I am glad we agree in principle on several matters - the difference lie in solutions, yours = bigger government, mine = less government.

I believe in the current system that politicians might start out not being corrupt but are soon influenced into corruption, even after ending paid lobbying and such you still come down to the inherent power and influence derived from growing federal programs - the power is from vote buying when particular programs can be tailored to guarantee re-election. Its does not matter one whit to the politician whether I live or die - it only matters they continue in office.

I am against single payer system as it hands the government the keys to the car as it were, unfortunately once they have the keys they inherently will become as drunk drivers in wielding that power. As always the likelihood of a crash is predictable. I have yet to see one single efficiently run government program that did not result in extreme waste and expenditure far beyond anything the private sector can come up with when the playing field is level. Usually it results in minimal service at maximal cost.

I think the private sector is magnitudes more efficient IF its a level field.

As it stands now we are both correct - corporations, associations and special interests have used the corruption of our politicians to both their mutual advantage at the publics expense.

I say remove ALL monopolistic and legal protection from laws such as the Sherman Act as just one example which allows unfair practices such as price collusion and non-disclosure. There are hundreds of other protective laws written by special interest influenced politicians both state and federal that once removed would open up honest competition resulting in costs coming down into reality.

I think you or I should be able to purchase as much or as little insurance coverage as we deem necessary for our individual needs - I certainly would be for laws requiring clear and prominent disclosure of coverage's in simple language so no ambiguity exists for the consumer.

Exchanges in the ACA are bastardized versions of what could be a good thing if they were much like joining a credit union not subject to state lines or limiting service to the county lived in.

The private sector already offers contraceptives at a reasonable cost of $0 to $50 so I see no real need for 99.999% to depend on government for what is a personal matter, just as I believe someone is wrong whether its private or government sponsored insurance to expect a $5.00 cost at the doctors office - its just not reasonable and someone, somewhere has to pick up the costs.

In conclusion I want my government to protect ME the consumer and then get out of the way, not step in the middle or become an unstoppable behemoth serving its own interests which is the result in single payer systems, once instituted you can't get rid of them even when corrupt and self serving. Choice and self determination go out the window.




posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Flatfish

thesaneone
reply to post by Flatfish
 


Elizabeth Warren, really?.

The Same Elizabeth Warren who lied about her being a Native American, the same Elizabeth Warren who claimed that she was the first nursing mother to take the New Jersey bar exam.

Okay.


Do you even realize just how petty your argument is? If that's all you've got on her, I would just imagine that she is probably the most honest person in Congress.

Yeah, that Elizabeth Warren.


Oh that Elizabeth Warren, gotcha.

Elizabeth Warren helped protect Dow Chemical against breast implant claims


edit on 27-3-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Having looked at this law, and listened to the debates and the rhetoric, and looked at the case being presented the following can be stated:

Before we make any predictions as to how the court will judge, one must remember that the US Supreme Court have 3 choices in this case. One is that they could rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, the Second is that they could rule in favor of the US Government and the third option is that they send it back down to a lower court to retry the entire case. No one really knows how they will rule, as they hear the case and take several months to decide, write up opinions, circulate it amongst each other and then debate some more behind closed doors and then come to a decision. So we have several months to wait for a verdict.

Now onto the court case, as it stands. At the heart of the matter is that the court is asked to decide that a company can deny or refuse to provide one part of health care to its employee’s as it violates their faith. But this would have deeper ramifications as there are other aspects that could be used by this ruling that the government should and would have to concede and actually make the burden on the public easier, and I will go into that in a few moments.

I believe that Hobby Lobby should win, cause it would reaffirm several things, the first is the right of privacy between a doctor and patient. If they lose, then the employer, who provides health insurance, could feasibly demand reports from a doctor about employees or certain employees. And if an employee had a medical condition that would affect the bottom line, then they could find reason to let that person go, and that would be a weighing factor. It could remove the wall of privacy and allow a company into the personal and private life of the employee in more of an intrusive way, using this decision to look at some medical reports and then put potentially harassing pressure on its employees to meet certain standards of health.

If it wins, the first is that it will further modify the health care law, as it should, and the first goes to the individual mandate. While the federal government will argue that all people need health insurance, however, there are a few problems, and the first being that a person should have more flexibility that the law does not provide. Does a man or a woman really need to have health insurance to cover children, when they are done having children? Could they not be allowed to do away with parts of the insurance that they no longer need?

Ultimately there is a question that no one is asking and I am surprised that it has not been brought up, when does owning a large business or being in a public office remove the right to a belief? If a person believes in one thing and it is a part of who they are, then should not the law or the public be more accepting of such? This company Hobby Lobby, does not discriminate, is an equal opportunity employer, provides jobs and is a secure employer, treating its employees with dignity, should not the law allow for the owners some leeway as to follow that belief. They are not denying wanting to pay for insurance for life saving medication, are not stating that they are only wanting to hire certain people, just not believing in birth control.

And at the same time should a person not take personal responsibility for their actions as well? Once it was considered to be the height of social faux pas for a woman to have a child out of wedlock, and that it was against the law for the use of birth control. Perhaps we need to go back to the day where people actually took responsibility for their actions, instead of taking the personal freedom to the extreme.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Phoenix
 


There is no way in hell that the private, for-profit healthcare insurance industry can compete with a not-for-profit system like Medicare. Sorry, it's just not possible.

The for profit healthcare insurance industry has to generate a profit while simultaneously covering the cost of advertising or marketing of their product, CEO salaries and entire departments who's job is to find a reason to deny your claim, because after all, they make their money by NOT paying claims.

There is a reason we rank dead last when it comes to efficient healthcare systems worldwide.

Furthermore, if you could show me just one private, for-profit healthcare insurance provider with administrative cost lower than those experienced by Medicare, I might give credence to your claim.

IMO, everyone should be covered for basic healthcare under Medicare and anyone who wishes to purchase additional coverage can do so through private insurance providers. No different than the supplemental policies purchased by most Medicare recipients today. For example, if you want a private room when you're in the hospital, get a private plan that covers the additional cost.

IMO, basic healthcare coverage should not be a "for-profit" venture.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   

greencmp

Oh that Elizabeth Warren, gotcha.

Elizabeth Warren helped protect Dow Chemical against breast implant claims



I guess I should expect nothing less than your posting of an article that offers absolutely no "proof" of what they're proposing in the article, only accusations and innuendos.

Here's the sentence you should have paid attention to in the article;


While Warren refuses to disclose what she did for Dow Chemical, it is pretty easy to surmise.


Do you know the definition of the word "surmise?"

Here, let me help;
Surmise; 1.) to suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it. 2.) a supposition that something may be true, even though there is no evidence to confirm it.



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by JimTSpock
 


In the US, it was designed to have the person be responsible for themselves.

It is super fantastic that is works for other countries.

We are not other countries.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Sorry to inform you that Obamacare has already been ruled Constitutiona by the Supreme Court.

If you actually think that the Supreme Court is ruling now to keep or stop the ACA you are getting desperate.

Sorry that you actually believe non-truths



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Skymon612
Sorry to inform you that Obamacare has already been ruled Constitutiona by the Supreme Court.

If you actually think that the Supreme Court is ruling now to keep or stop the ACA you are getting desperate.

Sorry that you actually believe non-truths


It is only constitutional after they determined it a tax.

And we can only hope that they reverse the unfair taxation.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Obamacare is not going anywhere. It indeed seems to be working.



posted on Mar, 31 2014 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Skymon612
Obamacare is not going anywhere. It indeed seems to be working.


If, by working, you mean denying more people to healthcare, raising costs, destroying 1/6th of the economy. . . . then yes, it is doing quite well.



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Should have an answer in just a few moments.

Good news for Hobby Lobby?
Good news for government mandates?

We'll know soon. . . . . .



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Closely held corporations can't be forced to provide contraception.

A blow to Obamacare.

YAY!



posted on Jun, 30 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Think about this for a minute. These people are obviously following a script. If the Supreme Court was this conscientious, there's no way the individual mandate would have been upheld on that "it's a tax" BS. Consistency (or lack thereof) is the giveaway.







 
24
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join