Page 88 of 122 FirstFirst ... 3878868788899098 ... LastLast
Results 871 to 880 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #871
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Except that the price tag has roughly doubled in the two years we have had the law shoved, by the Democrats and the One term Flexible Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama.
    Except that, as has been pointed out at least half a dozen times, that is a huge freakin' lie. In fact what the CBO said was that the cost will actually be $50 billion LOWER than originally estimated.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  2. #872
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    It's also painfully obvious that Scalia is taking cues from right-wing media and not the law itself. In the argument he made a snide remark about the "cornhusker kickback", which was a proposal to provide extra Medicaid funding for Nebraska. It was suggested as a way to get Ben Nelson's vote. The only problem is, it didn't make it into the final bill. He would know that if he or his clerks had read the bill, but not if they were getting your "research" from Fox News.
    Are you denying that the bribes did not occur?

    I love your tagline quote. Have you read the other 899 pages of The Wealth of Nations? Itis a hard read today because so much has changed. But the fundamental argument he made is that the capitalist system is the reason that some nations are wealthy. By implication those nations who choose other paths leave much wealth uncreated. The US today is a great example of what happens when free markets are damaged over a long period of time by statists. We are all poorer today because of the one term flexible Marxist president's policies.

  3. #873
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    There's no excuse for anyone involved not reading.
    Yeah. I started on the 900 page condensed version. I think to understand it I would have to mind map it over a period of many months. It is a monster. It is best to kill such a monster. It has a tyrant's fingerprints all over it. This sets the stage for totalitarianism in the US.

  4. #874
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Are you denying that the bribes did not occur?
    No I am not denying that bribes did not occur. Good double negative, btw.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  5. #875
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    I'm sorry; spin? Politicains and the carrying impplimentation of the law and deciding what is and is not constitutional are and should remain two separate things.

    And no, if Scalia won't take the time to comprehend what he's ruling on then he's not as dedicated to the constitution as he would have everyone belive; is he . . . of course not.
    The entire law was not in question. Can you, along with him, understand that the crux of the Constitutional question is whether or not the government can force one private party to enter into a binding contract with another private party? If it can then government is unlimited in its reach, scope, and powers. We will live under a totalitarian regime with the power to rule us with an iron fist. If the government cannot then the whole law can be tossed on the ash heap of history.

    If there were any justice every legislator who voted for this would be stripped of every possession and booted out of the country.
    Last edited by Misterveritis; 04-03-12 at 11:24 PM.

  6. #876
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Except that, as has been pointed out at least half a dozen times, that is a huge freakin' lie. In fact what the CBO said was that the cost will actually be $50 billion LOWER than originally estimated.
    No. I do not believe it is a lie. But show me from some reliable sources how the cost of health care has gone down for those of us who still have it.

  7. #877
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    No I am not denying that bribes did not occur. Good double negative, btw.
    LOL. It was an error. Are you denying that the bribes occurred?

  8. #878
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    No. I do not believe it is a lie. But show me from some reliable sources how the cost of health care has gone down for those of us who still have it.
    I would say that the CBO report is probably the best source for what the CBO report said:

    CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period

    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...0Estimates.pdf
    As far as reducing health care costs for those presently insured -- no one has ever claimed that AHCA would do that. What it will do is lower deficits by reducing the growth in health care spending. It should also make insurance more affordable for lower income working people, the self employed, and anyone with a preexisting condition.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  9. #879
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    LOL. It was an error. Are you denying that the bribes occurred?
    What are these bribes you're talking about? Who supposedly bribed who with what for what?
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  10. #880
    Professor xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-23-12 @ 10:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Siiiiigh.

    No, it's still in there, just in expanded form. Congress DID pass it with it pertaining only to Nebraska; it was changed to all the states in reconciliation at Nelson's request, probably because he was embarrassed by it (and being booed out of a restaurant by your own constituents had to be rough). So, the venality, if it were such, was spread everywhere, not expunged.

    Of course, it won't stop you from thinking Scalia only gets his information from Fox News, a conclusion you reached because you thought the provision was removed.
    You are wrong on this one. Its no longer a kick back if its universally applied and in the context of Scallia's quote it shows how little he knows about the law. Its sad really; however, its a good thing the SCOUS is, only judging the mandate so I guess it really doesn't matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    The entire law was not in question. Can you, along with him, understand that the crux of the Constitutional question is whether or not the government can force one private party to enter into a binding contract with another private party? If it can then government is unlimited in its reach, scope, and powers. We will live under a totalitarian regime with the power to rule us with an iron fist. If the government cannot then the whole law can be tossed on the ash heap of history.

    If there were any justice every legislator who voted for this would be stripped of every possession and booted out of the country.
    The same arguments have been made before and in those instances the supreme court made their ruling so narrow that out could not be applied to law as a whole. Don't be surprised if the same thing happens here. Why else would the supreme court want to here arguments on the tax aspect of the law when all parties said it want a tax?

    The difference between a democrat and a republican is who owes the favor, the politican or the business
    Hayek - too liberal for republicans

Page 88 of 122 FirstFirst ... 3878868788899098 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •