"I'm confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld." Obama concluded.

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by Ghost375
 


The car insurance thing is a state issue, I can also choose not to drive. To be forced to pay for something just for living is a little bit different. Or maybe you don't think so.

Why do you have such a problem with your tax dollars going to sick people?
That isn't just directed to you. I'd like everyone to explain this.

edit on 2-4-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)


Great way to generalize and try to make anyone against it a cold hearted person. So where does my tax dollars go? Do you know? when this is enacted? Does it go to the sick people themselves? I don't know maybe you can tell me exactly where my money will go?

Also, would you be ok funding the care of someone who smoked 30 packs of cigs a day and has lung cancer? Just a hypothetical.
edit on 2-4-2012 by mayabong because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


Stop with trying to emotionally manipulate....no one is ever denied care in this country.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Only 16% of citizen's do not have insurance, and a large percentage of those pay they own bills so the 8% or so that aren't covered and do not pay are going to cost 1 Trillion dollars over the next ten years. That is really bad money management.

And if you read any of my other posts on ats (which I know Outkast and Ghost have) then you know I do not believe in health insurance period...only catastrophic...the same way home owners and auto works.

I believe wholly in free markets...paying Drs. directly with no middle man stealing a cut.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
This reminds me of the 1930s and FDR's New Deal. The Congress passed a ton of legislation in a short amount and later the Supreme Court struck down many provisions of the New Deal. At one point FDR attempted to expand the court from 9 members to 13, thus stacking the deck in his favor. Congress shot him down.

Just because an elected body pass a law does not make it constitutional. Our American Style of Government has check and balances. The reason members of the court are given life time appointments is so they are beholden to no one and can do their duty with out worrying about politics (though I'm sure it always plays a part).

If the US Constitution is still the document that we all think it is it the health care law will be struck down because it goes to far in giving the government to much power. Not to mention that it clearly violates the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

If the Law is up held then the Constitution is dead and it time for a second revolution.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


You want to go against the law of the land the "constitution" that you hate so much.

Go where they dont have one....see if it's better.

And since this is my thread I will no longer answer certain trolls who have nothing to offer but childish games.

Have nice, free day, courtesy of the red, white and blue.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by timetothink
 


Obama with another *because I said so* statement. Just like a condescending father to an intelligent question from his child.

When is America going to stand up and say enough is enough.

Des


It's more like a statement of fact to the crazy person standing on the corner yelling at a brick wall.

Legislating from the bench...that is what people should be worried about. If they want to call the mandate unconstitutional...fine...but keep your damn hands off the rest of the constitutionally passed bill.


The individual mandate is a pivotal part of all 2700 pages of that bill. They couldn't get a lot of the Dems who did vote it to vote for it without putting in that mandate. Therefore the bill was written to be tailored around that mandate. If you take out that mandate, it looks like a totally different bill then what was voted on in the first place and therefore wouldn't have received the needed votes to have passed the House much less the Senate. So you want the highest court in the land to leave a bill intact after voting to remove a specific part of it turning the bill into something completely different then what Congress had voted on to begin with? I don't agree and if you read words of the Justices, they think much the same thing. If you want Government Healthcare, move to Canada.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Seems like our wannabe-dictator must be a little worried about the vote if he feels the need to threaten the Supreme Court. Can't shake the feeling that obama feels the courts are beneath him.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Chance321
 


And it is just mind numbing that he thinks the congress outranks the supreme court...though I am sure he only feels that way right now...if it was a republican law up before the court, he would be all over the news saying they are the Supreme law of the land...


By the way Mexico now has an excellent (I'm sure:duh
) universal healthcare system and with all the people jumping the border to get into our country I am sure they have alot of room for anyone who thinks the US sucks. Buh bye!! Me-hee-co awaits you!
edit on 2-4-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
Why do you have such a problem with your tax dollars going to sick people?
That isn't just directed to you. I'd like everyone to explain this.


Me, personally, I would have no problem at all with my tax dollars going to help sick people. I think that would be great! Especially if the the government took that $2 billion dollars a week we are spending now to kill goat farmers in the Middle East and used that to build hospitals, train doctors and nurses, etc.

Now let's talk about Obamacare.

Obamacare has absolutely, positively nothing to do with health care. It's all about profits for insurance companies. Anyone who has had to sit in the emergency room for 4 hrs. because there is only one or two doctors working the emergency room knows that there is a big difference between having health insurance and getting health care. How many doctors will Obamacare generate? How many nurses? How many hospitals or clinics will be constructed as a result of Obamacare? The answer to all three is, of course, none. One thing Obamacare will generate is tens of millions of people with the attitude, "Well, I have to pay for this insurance, I might as well get my money's worth." You think emergency rooms are bad now? Wait till you're sitting in one while they have to go through somebody with a hangnail, somebody with the flu, somebody with a scaped knee, a hypocondriate, and somebody faking stomach pain in order to get a prescription for pain pills.

But let's talk about some of the selling points of Obamacare.

You can't be denied coverage, right? Well, technically, insurance companies don't HAVE to deny anyone coverage now. They could insure anyone, all they have to do is make the premiums so high that they still make a profit. Or, they could just charge other customers more to make up the difference.

One thing you need to realize about insurance companies; they are run just like casinos. They figure the odds, they figure a profit margin, and they set the premiums (bets) accordingly. And just like casinos, they always profit in the long run. Just like casinos, they have their own private security, they have the full cooperation of law enforcement, and even have special law enforcement dedicated just to their industry. When you deal with them, you are on your own.

With that in mind, you realize that, just like casinos, insurance company profits are limited only by the number of customers. There is nothing in Obamacare that I've seen that limits what an insurance company can charge anyone in premiums. I do recall something about a penalty if they refused to insure someone. I think it was $100 a day, if someone can verify that figure for me I'd appreciate it. So, theoretically, an insurance company could just figure it's cheaper to pay the penalty until you die, which would be faster since they denied you coverage. All perfectly legal. Remeber, this legislation was written by insurance companies and lawyers, you know they have their loopholes.

Well, another selling point, insurance rates will be more affordable, right? Really? Why? Does the legislation require insurance companies to cut their profits? Not that I'm aware. They might lower their profits for a while, just to make this law a little easier to swallow, but they'll go right back up. Insurance companies will no longer have to compete for customers like casinos, you have to buy it, they'll tell you how much.

OK, but under Obamacare, the Government helps people who can't afford insurance to have it. That's a good thing, right? Well, yeah, that does sound pretty good. But let's follow the money on that. You pay taxes, they government takes that tax money and gives it to insurance companies. Once again, the insurance companies profit.

Are we beginning to notice a trend here?

There is one possibly good outcome from Obamacare. Since insurance companies will be making a profit on every living man, woman, and child in America, they might try insure that America has as many living, healthy people as possible. Maybe we'll get some healthier food out of this. Of course, eventually tobacco and alcohol will be banned.

-- continued on next post --



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I wouldn't have a problem with Obamacare if it were a system where tax dollars went directly to doctors, nurses, hospitals, dentists, etc. I'd be behind that 100%. All Obamacare does is insure greater profits for an industry that is basically sucking money away from health care professionals and customers.

Even if the Court rules against this, I still won't be too happy. Because it seems to be going along party lines. That just means that they will try again with the right mix President, Congress, and Court and pass it. Or, the insurance companies can bribe just one judge now and be done with it. I find it sad to think that a person can sit on the Supreme Court and honestly believe that the Founding Fathers intended for the Federal Government to have the authority to force people to give their money to a parasitic insurance industry. If they wanted that, they could have stayed British.



posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
I wouldn't have a problem with Obamacare if it were a system where tax dollars went directly to doctors, nurses, hospitals, dentists, etc. I'd be behind that 100%. All Obamacare does is insure greater profits for an industry that is basically sucking money away from health care professionals and customers.

Even if the Court rules against this, I still won't be too happy. Because it seems to be going along party lines. That just means that they will try again with the right mix President, Congress, and Court and pass it. Or, the insurance companies can bribe just one judge now and be done with it. I find it sad to think that a person can sit on the Supreme Court and honestly believe that the Founding Fathers intended for the Federal Government to have the authority to force people to give their money to a parasitic insurance industry. If they wanted that, they could have stayed British.


Great summary. Thanks for posting





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join