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 rules in favor of Obamacare in King v. Burwell

page: 8
9
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
so, everyone of you are pissed that low paid people get affordable coverage?....yeah, the horror!


I can only speak for myself but what bothers me most about Obamacare is that the legal precedent set by the individual mandate is effectively the end of free choice. Anything the government decides it wants to MAKE us do is wide open now. It's essentially a wild card for totalitarianism.

This "You guys just don't want poor people to have anything!" argument is a false dichotomy that completely ignores a perfectly rational objection that people have to this. It doesn't have anything to do with poor people. It has to do with the fact that I don't want to be forced to buy health insurance. Or anything else, for that matter. Just because I breathe is not a good enough reason to give the government that kind of power.




posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Aazadan

You're looking at it the wrong way.

Instead of worrying about how people can pay for the high cost of medical care, why isn't anyone looking at lowering the costs so everyone could afford it without government interfering!

But isn't it mostly because of government interfering that it costs so much in the first place? Malpractice insurance is insane, everyone sues for a living and then Obamacare?



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Aazadan

You're looking at it the wrong way.

Instead of worrying about how people can pay for the high cost of medical care, why isn't anyone looking at lowering the costs so everyone could afford it without government interfering!

But isn't it mostly because of government interfering that it costs so much in the first place? Malpractice insurance is insane, everyone sues for a living and then Obamacare?


Yes. Due to ACA regulations, I spend more time documenting a visit with a patient than I do actually visiting with a patient.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Aazadan

You're looking at it the wrong way.

Instead of worrying about how people can pay for the high cost of medical care, why isn't anyone looking at lowering the costs so everyone could afford it without government interfering!


THE high cost is BECAUSE of government,.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I feel like sometimes many Americans here on these forums wish they lived in a country ruled by anarchy. I don't really care about the conservative/liberal titles you slap on each other, except that I feel like you also have a skewed view of what those even are. As far as I see you really only have right (democrats) and further right (republicans), there really is no left side at all as they were all outlawed and beaten (physically) many years ago. I would highly suggest never even using the word communism as clearly knowing what that is for many of you is out of the picture.

Mandated insurance is not communism, its Corporatocracy pure and simple and if you can't see it your blind. Your being led by companies and that is NOOOOOOOOOOOT communism by any sense of the definition.
edit on 26-6-2015 by Permutation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: CIAGypsy
I think you read my post incorrectly. Go back and re-read it SLOWLY. I *DO* put my businesses and family at risk by speaking out and going against the political direction. However, it would be downright STUPID for me (or anyone) to not ensure their own security in the battle. Only a fool walks headlong into the enemy totally exposed which is, I surmise, why you don't lead anything or anyone anywhere.

So you think there's nothing wrong with the bilking of the middle class and loss of freedoms. Well, I suppose that shows us where you stand.


In order to be a revolutionary you need to be willing to give up everything. Your job, your friends, your family, your assets, your future, and quite likely your life and the lives of everyone you care about, and then lead by example. All you're doing is sitting back nice and comfortable hoping others will strap on the suicide vests for you. You're about on par with the ISIS planners who put bombs on people and send them off for one shot of glory, all while sitting comfortably in a bunker.

If you still believe in ensuring your own security you're definitely not in the requisite position to revolt, or to lead.


You have NO IDEA what I can or have sacrificed for my principles so I suggest you pull your head out of that unmentionable place....

Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Permutation
I feel like sometimes many Americans here on these forums wish they lived in a country ruled by anarchy.


Aside from the idea that one cannot be 'ruled' by a state of humanity free from government... Chalk me up in that camp. I am always intrigued by why after the Declaration and Revolution, when free of ALL kings and rulers, priveledged classes, we did anything? I understand why, but the anti-federalists had some good arguments too. As and aside, my libertarian brother won't even entertain anarchy: equates it to bedlam. Good points.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join