• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law

lpast said:
They had to strangle people to get this vote passed as it was...single payer had no chance to pass...but Pelosi was hell bent on passing ANYTHING because she believed it would be her legacy...she passed a bad bill and she is forever labled in an unflattering way to say it nicely.
Click to expand...
I'm with you on this. The democrats wanted to be able to claim healthcare reform and it will end up hurting them, because they stuck us with a bad bill that doesn't fix our problems.
 
MrVicchio said:
Obviously this is a court stacked by the Kock Brothers and "Big Pharma" who don't care about the poor, the elderly or "the children" and of course, don't realize the superior system of UHC.
Click to expand...

Actually, the fact this isn't UHC is perhaps one reason the judges ruled the way they did.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/8592-11th-circuit-rules-obamacare-individual-mandate-unconstitutional said:
Dubina and Hull declared that “Congress exceeded its enumerated commerce power” when it “mandate[d] that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die.”
Click to expand...

What if you took "private insurance companies" out of the equation? It would be a different argument, for certain. Ruling against this doesn't rule against real UHC.

Personally, it seems like the individual mandate was the unpopular piece forced into the bill by big pharma.
 
AdamT said:
You do understand that these waivers are temporary, right? They are only good until insurance exchanges are established in a couple years. The purpose is to allow existing coverage to continue until the exhanges are set up, at which point employees will have many more options.
Click to expand...

Ya, and right when those waivers are about to expire the people receiving waivers will simply lobby for extensions... In other words, I'll believe it when i see it.

EDIT: and looking back, you clearly didn't see the one link where Pelosi alone has handed out 20% of these waivers to places like bars she goes to.

This also begs the question: why are you so easy to forgive clear corruption?!?
 
Last edited:
BmanMcfly said:
Ya, and right when those waivers are about to expire the people receiving waivers will simply lobby for extensions... In other words, I'll believe it when i see it.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that you'll believe it when you see it, but if you say so....
 
AdamT said:
I'm not so sure that you'll believe it when you see it, but if you say so....
Click to expand...

Ya, kinda like the "troop pullout of Iraq" where he just changed The borders of cities and replaced military with mercenaries. I'll believe things when I see them, but the fact is these things never happen, at least not the way we are told they are going to happen onthe face.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Ya, kinda like the "troop pullout of Iraq" where he just changed The borders of cities and replaced military with mercenaries. I'll believe things when I see them, but the fact is these things never happen, at least not the way we are told they are going to happen onthe face.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's just what I mean.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
If greedy kkkhristianist kkkapitalist kkkreationist kkkaucasianisist doctors didn't have to make a bazillion dollars every year, then maybe healthcare would be affordable. They vacation in their second homes while minorities, non-christians, and the poor basically just have to deal with whatever illness comes their way. F***ing greedy f***s destroy the environment with their excessive consumption while the underprivileged classes are crushed by illness. Shame on this country.
Click to expand...


you forgot repbulikkkan........dude....get a grip...how can you label somebody as a kkkchristian and a kkkcreationist
 
AdamT said:
What lie would that be, pray tell?
Click to expand...

You mean you're forcing me to choose just one?

People have written full length books on the lies of politicians, and you're forcing me to choose a single one.

The other real problem is to show a lie for what it is when a person will apologize for the lies... I mean, you've already pretty much said it, giving waivers to select companies to a law on a seemingly arbitrary basis, that is not equally available to ALL businesses IS favoritism at the least and fascist at the worst... either way is not within the bounds of the constitution. Unless you're going to take the supremacy clause out of context, or some other "loophole" that somehow justifies this as within the bounds of the constitution, when everyone knows these things at least go against the intentions of the constitution if not directly the word of the constitution.
 
The really awesome thing about all of this is that the SCOTUS will overturn the healthcare bill in about 6 months (mid presidential campaign) and it will drive the final nail in the Obama re-election coffin.
 
Paschendale said:
And just think, we could have avoided all this nonsense if we'd just gone with the public option, which was what everyone actually wanted, instead of this mandate crap.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. It was a better choice.
 
Boo Radley said:
I agree completely. It was a better choice.
Click to expand...

I agree that we should have the public option but it wasn't an either/or situation. The mandate is necessary to address the free rider problem with or without the public option.

The amazing thing about the resistance to the mandate is that it was originally a Republican idea and it was sold on the basis of personal responsibility. No one should be allowed to sponge free health care because they are too cheap to buy insurance for themselves and their families. Free riders raise costs for responsible members of society who do buy insurance.

If you drill down into this issue you reach another bizarre pinnacle of conservative illogic. The conservative response is that we should illiminate the free rider problem by simply denying medical care to anyone who doesn't have insurance, or who can't pay for it up front. Of course that puts far more pressure on individuals to purchase insurance than does any mandate, which is enforced with a modest fine. So the conservative conclusion is that it's abhorent to compel someone to buy health insurance through a modest fine, but it's perfectly okay to compel people to buy insurance through the threat that they may be left for dead if they don't! Genius.
 
AdamT said:
If you drill down into this issue you reach another bizarre pinnacle of conservative illogic. The conservative response is that we should illiminate the free rider problem by simply denying medical care to anyone who doesn't have insurance, or who can't pay for it up front. Of course that puts far more pressure on individuals to purchase insurance than does any mandate, which is enforced with a modest fine. So the conservative conclusion is that it's abhorent to compel someone to buy health insurance through a modest fine, but it's perfectly okay to compel people to buy insurance through the threat that they may be left for dead if they don't! Genius.
Click to expand...

Well those sick people should be working. Even if their heart is working at 10%!
 
AdamT said:
I agree that we should have the public option but it wasn't an either/or situation. The mandate is necessary to address the free rider problem with or without the public option.

The amazing thing about the resistance to the mandate is that it was originally a Republican idea and it was sold on the basis of personal responsibility. No one should be allowed to sponge free health care because they are too cheap to buy insurance for themselves and their families. Free riders raise costs for responsible members of society who do buy insurance.

If you drill down into this issue you reach another bizarre pinnacle of conservative illogic. The conservative response is that we should illiminate the free rider problem by simply denying medical care to anyone who doesn't have insurance, or who can't pay for it up front. Of course that puts far more pressure on individuals to purchase insurance than does any mandate, which is enforced with a modest fine. So the conservative conclusion is that it's abhorent to compel someone to buy health insurance through a modest fine, but it's perfectly okay to compel people to buy insurance through the threat that they may be left for dead if they don't! Genius.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with the mandate myself. I see the public option as being necessary. It was a better way to go overall. UHC better still. But, I agree if we're going to do away with pre-existing conditions and such, you have to have a mandate. What I think some miss is that without the mandate, the things they want won't happen. It is that disconnect. And yes, those who oppose the mandate often suffer from the disconnect you speak of, not understanding the pressures well enough.

They won't say we can refuse to treat emergencies, which means we will treat people who can't pay, but are willing to leave people who can't pay for lessor treatments without care, which in the long run will lead either to early death or more expensive care. If we look at health care as public health issue, I think it becomes less objectionable to us public funds.
 
Boo Radley said:
If we look at health care as public health issue, I think it becomes less objectionable to us public funds.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Keep changing the terminology and the euphemisms until it becomes publicly acceptable.
 
Grant said:
Exactly. Keep changing the terminology and the euphemisms until it becomes publicly acceptable.
Click to expand...

Not exactly what I'm doing. It is a public health issue.
 
RiverDad said:
How is my paying for your liposuction a public health issue?
Click to expand...

Didn't say it was. However, a gastroplasty might be. Diabetes is an expensive illness, and being morbidly obese can lead to heatlh concerns that sooner or later will lead to the person bring in the ER, needing emergency treatment with no one pay for that care.

No one says you can get anything you want. Some things have always been considered elective, cosmetic, and denied by even your insurance company. What we're discussing is minimal and needed care, that which keeps the entire community healthier, helping to prevent outbreaks that come from people not seeing doctors, not caring for their health due to lack of funds, access and what comes with being part of the working poor.
 
Boo Radley said:
Didn't say it was. However, a gastroplasty might be. Diabetes is an expensive illness, and being morbidly obese can lead to heatlh concerns that sooner or later will lead to the person bring in the ER, needing emergency treatment with no one pay for that care.

No one says you can get anything you want. Some things have always been considered elective, cosmetic, and denied by even your insurance company. What we're discussing is minimal and needed care, that which keeps the entire community healthier, helping to prevent outbreaks that come from people not seeing doctors, not caring for their health due to lack of funds, access and what comes with being part of the working poor.
Click to expand...

There is a clear and convincing case that can be made for public health and frankly I don't know any anti-ObamaCare people who oppose government funding for public health. Public health spending is a classic case of something that only government can do and which benefits the entire community.

Paying for your care after you have a heart attack does not fall into that category. The provision of such care doesn't "keep the entire community healthier" in the manner of public health spending. If you drop dead of a heart attack, I and my family are still perfectly healthy. If you are spreading ebola all over the place then your lack of heath services does affect everyone else.
 
RiverDad said:
There is a clear and convincing case that can be made for public health and frankly I don't know any anti-ObamaCare people who oppose government funding for public health. Public health spending is a classic case of something that only government can do and which benefits the entire community.

Paying for your care after you have a heart attack does not fall into that category. The provision of such care doesn't "keep the entire community healthier" in the manner of public health spending. If you drop dead of a heart attack, I and my family are still perfectly healthy. If you are spreading ebola all over the place then your lack of heath services does affect everyone else.
Click to expand...

Well, you have a heart attack. YOu don't have either money or insurance. Will the hospital let you die? If not, what happens after they revive you and send you home with that huge bill? The care doesn't stop then? What is the effect on the community? Your family?

You go home, no meds, another heart attack. Back in the ER. More care that you can't pay for, and we start the cycle again. Eventually you die, but depending on serverity and specifics, this can go on awhile.

It is part of the fabric of the community, public. It effects costs, use of resources, overall ability of the community to handle the needs of the community.
 
RiverDad said:
There is a clear and convincing case that can be made for public health and frankly I don't know any anti-ObamaCare people who oppose government funding for public health. Public health spending is a classic case of something that only government can do and which benefits the entire community.QUOTE]

Where do you think Government funds some from? There is no Money Fairy to magically hand over the billions it's going to cost if this rubbish is not stopped by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
 
Councilman1059734624 said:
RiverDad said:
There is a clear and convincing case that can be made for public health and frankly I don't know any anti-ObamaCare people who oppose government funding for public health. Public health spending is a classic case of something that only government can do and which benefits the entire community.
Click to expand...

Where do you think Government funds some from? There is no Money Fairy to magically hand over the billions it's going to cost if this rubbish is not stopped by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I hate to defend RD, but he never suggested there was money tooth fairy.
 
Councilman said:
Where do you think Government funds some from? There is no Money Fairy to magically hand over the billions it's going to cost if this rubbish is not stopped by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

If you want to dispute what I write then please pay attention to what I write. Public health is not the same as publicly funded health care. The example of an ebola epidemic might have been a clue.

Government provision of public heath services is what the Center For Disease Control is doing. They track epidemics and communicable disease. Public vaccinations benefit all of society and not just those who are vaccinated.

The money for this must come from taxes, just like with defense and policing. Public health, also like defense, border security, and policing, is a public good, that is it is a good that is very hard for the private sector to provide.

Lastly, the Supreme Court isn't hearing any cases on Public Health. They're hearing a case on Obama Care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom