• 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!

Obama Slaps States That Don't Comply With Obamacare

And I remember the Bush administration telling me I have to watch what I say. Here's the deal, whoever gets into power abuses power. Bush did it then, and Obama is doing it now. How do we stop this continual abuse of power? Third party, bud. Until enough people realize this, we are going to continue getting screwed, no matter who is in office. And I walk what I talk. I voted Gary Johnson. :wink:


So you don't think that some other party in power would abuse power? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We could have 27 parties and the person in charge would be subject to abusing the power of the office. You voted Gary Johnson, well rudy poo for you. Had you and your band of merry contrarian dope advocates had realized the importance of this election and voted rationally to remove this dictator wanna be, we wouldn't be rushing head long into the demise we are pressing the gas pedal to the floor to get to. Thanks for that.
 
Nonsense. You have given no examples of other "modern" legislation that does any of the three things that I mentioned, related to the PPACA law. Medicaid comes close, but that at least has federal matching funding, unlike the subject of this post - a federal law attempting to "punish" a state for exercising an "option". Remember that the SCOTUS ruled that "punishing" states for not implementing the state exchanges "option", by withholding that state's Medicaid funds, was unconstitutional. Obama seems to think that passing this "punishment" (3.5% premium fee) down to the state's insurance carriers, who will simply pass it on to that state's residents, is a slick end run around that SCOTUS ruling. Yes he did!

^^^^^ This is exactly what it is about. You called this out Correctly T7.....moreover all you stated afterwards was excellent on the Obama Play. Again I just wanted to point out that Crystal Clear Point for those on the left to see. Which is the Insurance Carriers will pass the cost all along to that States's Residents.

This means the The Non Definable middle class and the Poor. Higher Costs, more visits to a doctor, and all the Spending that comes with it. The Progressives duped the rest on the Left. Course then they deflect and talk about Prescriptions Drugs to perk the Ears of the Seniors.

Thanks as I was trying to get that point out with the SCOTUS and the End Run by Obama!
 
Just its very presence (FIT) is and has been argued since 1913. It has many exemptions and penalties. Nobody likes it very much.

See the similarities?

We're just going to have to wait and see how it (Obamacare) sorts itself out. If it's as hideous as you might imagine, then someone else will be elected. Apparently, for now, a majority has accepted it.

That would be incorrect. The majority hasn't accept it, which is why Obama is willing to cave with some issues within his own Plan that he never knew about until last year. Which is why.....no one is listening to the DNC pumping up the Jams as to "hey" we won. Everybody is suppose to roll over because they won. I hope that part of the Delusion wears off soon and the Democrats realize they aint getting NOTHING else for FREE!
 
So you don't think that some other party in power would abuse power? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We could have 27 parties and the person in charge would be subject to abusing the power of the office. You voted Gary Johnson, well rudy poo for you. Had you and your band of merry contrarian dope advocates had realized the importance of this election and voted rationally to remove this dictator wanna be, we wouldn't be rushing head long into the demise we are pressing the gas pedal to the floor to get to. Thanks for that.


U got that Right J-Mac.....they knew Johnson stood no chance. Although he was the Bigger draw out of those Libertarian Parties. They should have set up their Saints going Marching in tune for 2016 and Jumped out the Box planning for then. Instead they gave the Country up to Obama and the Demos.

To me it was the basic fact that they cannot recognize the Progressives Agenda and what that is all about. Thinking they are tied to the T. Roosevelt Progressives. Which have nothing to do with the Progressive movement. Moreover Johnson got to see the Movie On Obama before it was released. He should have though of Country First. Not Party. Now Obama is the Lame duck. But he will have to be fought all the way on anything and everything.
 
^^^^^ This is exactly what it is about. You called this out Correctly T7.....moreover all you stated afterwards was excellent on the Obama Play. Again I just wanted to point out that Crystal Clear Point for those on the left to see. Which is the Insurance Carriers will pass the cost all along to that States's Residents.

This means the The Non Definable middle class and the Poor. Higher Costs, more visits to a doctor, and all the Spending that comes with it. The Progressives duped the rest on the Left. Course then they deflect and talk about Prescriptions Drugs to perk the Ears of the Seniors.

Thanks as I was trying to get that point out with the SCOTUS and the End Run by Obama!

Thank you. I have been saying, all along, that PPACA is a scam to foist a huge new gov't entitlement (income redistribution) upon the nation. The use of private medical care insurance companies is temporary at best. With essentially federal gov't defined fixed premiums, gov't defined benefits and individual/employer mandates it is UHC with a temporary private take (15% to 20% overhead) included. Folks will next be told that these private insurance companies are no longer needed, since they simply make the costs go up with their "overhead" and we will have UHC (with the usual delays and red tape of all gov't run social programs) for the poor/middle class and a cash for good care (and head of line privileges) system for the rich. Of course you may "keep your current insurance plan" only if it meets the constantly changing gov't specs, accepts the gov't defined "overhead" (profit) limits and pays only what the gov't allows for each service provided. Yes he did!
 
Not sure why any state would run their own exchange, since Federal monies for them only apply till 2014.
 
Not sure why any state would run their own exchange, since Federal monies for them only apply till 2014.

Perhaps it would make them feel good to participate, pretending to actually maintain some state power, share in the glory of the miracle of PPACA. Then again, why suffer the expense when the feds are in control of PPACA and the state can stand back and blame the mess on the feds. Obviously Obama (and company) envisioned this possibilty (probability?), so the original PPACA law contained "penalties" (punishments?) for states that decided not to simply play along - they would take away Medicaid fund matching from those "bad" states. The SCOTUS said that state gov't arm twisting was unconstitutional, so Obama invented a plan to punish that state's insurance companies instead, hoping that they are too small (or scared) to take that matter to court and will simply punish that state's citizens for Obama instead. Yes he did!
 
I don't have any way of judging the overall sentiment of America. I based my OPINION© on a couple of factors"

Obama was re-elected, warts and all, by enough of a majority to have the election unchallenged. This is his signature legislation so electing him, to my POV, is electing Obamacare.

I've read many articles (which might all be lies but...) that say that a majority LIKES all the bennies, they just don't like having to PAY for it mandatorily. Well, sure, I'd have a private 747 if I didn't have to pay for it. Since logically to play, you must pay, I sense that it is popular and the sole objection is so silly that it doesn't count for much.

We'll see who rolls over and who doesn't very, very soon.


That would be incorrect. The majority hasn't accept it, which is why Obama is willing to cave with some issues within his own Plan that he never knew about until last year. Which is why.....no one is listening to the DNC pumping up the Jams as to "hey" we won. Everybody is suppose to roll over because they won. I hope that part of the Delusion wears off soon and the Democrats realize they aint getting NOTHING else for FREE!
 
I don't have any way of judging the overall sentiment of America. I based my OPINION© on a couple of factors"

Obama was re-elected, warts and all, by enough of a majority to have the election unchallenged. This is his signature legislation so electing him, to my POV, is electing Obamacare.

I've read many articles (which might all be lies but...) that say that a majority LIKES all the bennies, they just don't like having to PAY for it mandatorily. Well, sure, I'd have a private 747 if I didn't have to pay for it. Since logically to play, you must pay, I sense that it is popular and the sole objection is so silly that it doesn't count for much.

We'll see who rolls over and who doesn't very, very soon.

Yeah I was going with that the Republicans have 30 States. Plus the fact of other Suits being filed in the SCOTUS after their Ruling on Obamacare. Plus the Physicians and Surgeons Association. Arent they from out west somewhere? Goldstone group or something like that. Which their Suit is based on the Constitutionality of Obamas 15 man panel. As opposed to laws being passed thru legislation with Congress. As the Law is Intended!
 
I seem to recall something like that as well...but see this is how authoritarian progressives get what they want whether you like it or not..When you find their loophole, as in the exchanges, they smack you with a heavy handed regulation, if that doesn't work because the court says no, then ignore the court. Welcome to the United State of Chicago.

Nth is all sounds like more whining to me. Don't like the law, get work making it better. You'd have me with a two tiered single payer system. But jump in. Work make better. Whining rarely solves anything.
 
...and you may be right.

I based my thoughts on the fact that it seems to be the laws that was (however foolishly or blindly) passed by Congress, signed by the POTUS and ruled in favor of 5 to 4 in a generally partisan SCOTUS.

Despite the 30 states and some Association's opinion (not to mention the DP consensus:)) that Obamacare is now the law, like it or not. Probably a million lawsuits will be filed to occupy time better spent in solving other problems but unless and until the law is changed, it is the law and it's going to be in effect starting next month.

....if the Constitution were the base guideline, many laws would be considered "unconstitutional" but you know as wll as I do that the Constitution has been repeatedly ignored and w are ruled by the results, not by the emotion.

Yeah I was going with that the Republicans have 30 States. Plus the fact of other Suits being filed in the SCOTUS after their Ruling on Obamacare. Plus the Physicians and Surgeons Association. Arent they from out west somewhere? Goldstone group or something like that. Which their Suit is based on the Constitutionality of Obamas 15 man panel. As opposed to laws being passed thru legislation with Congress. As the Law is Intended!
 
...and you may be right.

I based my thoughts on the fact that it seems to be the laws that was (however foolishly or blindly) passed by Congress, signed by the POTUS and ruled in favor of 5 to 4 in a generally partisan SCOTUS.

Despite the 30 states and some Association's opinion (not to mention the DP consensus:)) that Obamacare is now the law, like it or not. Probably a million lawsuits will be filed to occupy time better spent in solving other problems but unless and until the law is changed, it is the law and it's going to be in effect starting next month.

....if the Constitution were the base guideline, many laws would be considered "unconstitutional" but you know as wll as I do that the Constitution has been repeatedly ignored and w are ruled by the results, not by the emotion.

Other than the penalty.....what else Could Obama do if all 30 states opt out? One thing is for sure it will leave the mark on Obama's record that 30 states didn't agree with his policies and told him to take a walk.
 
Good question.

It's doubtful these states will have the courage.
If they do, Obama has a bigger, uh, thing, than they do.
Obama isn't worried about his legacy or being re-elected
SCOTUS (surprisingly) is backing Obama


Other than the penalty.....what else Could Obama do if all 30 states opt out? One thing is for sure it will leave the mark on Obama's record that 30 states didn't agree with his policies and told him to take a walk.
 
So instead of admitting his law is pile of garbage he instead is going to ensure that people pay even more for healthcare than they already going to due to the law. Lol, it's as if he wants to pwn himself.

Oh Obama has already pwn himself. The idiot only championed Obamacare as "not a tax" then his lawyers turn around and argue to the SCOTUS that it is a tax...
 
Good question.

It's doubtful these states will have the courage.
If they do, Obama has a bigger, uh, thing, than they do.
Obama isn't worried about his legacy or being re-elected
SCOTUS (surprisingly) is backing Obama

Obama is very much worried about his Legacy. I would have you look up his comments over moving the US into the Far East. Already he is looking for his Presidential Library in Chicago. So far UIC where he and his Wife Worked looks like they are the Front runner.

Except SCOTUS isn't backing him on this issue, As they Already ruled. Hence the Obama Regulation Now!
 
Nth is all sounds like more whining to me. Don't like the law, get work making it better. You'd have me with a two tiered single payer system. But jump in. Work make better. Whining rarely solves anything.

And just how would we make it better? The democrats want more and the republicans want less and so do I. Not sure how you work with people that want UHC and are perfectly happy with allowing costs to go up so more people demand exactly what they want.
 
Last edited:
And just how would we make it better? The democrats want more and the republicans want less and so do I. Not sure how you work with people that want UHC and are perfectly happy with allowing costs to go up so more people demand exactly what they want.

You do realize systems that have single payer, even two tiered like I advocate, spend less? Therefore, based on actual fvacts, your comment doesn't make a lot of sense.
 
You do realize systems that have single payer, even two tiered like I advocate, spend less? Therefore, based on actual fvacts, your comment doesn't make a lot of sense.

You do realize you just avoided my comment, right? The fact is democrats and many of their supports have come out and said flat out that if prices go up people will support a UHC. Why exactly would they work to avoid such a result when if they get that result they will surely win?

As for your comment, prices there are going up and has been going up since they put the systems in place. All you are doing is pretending that the costs have been lowered by your system and the system here is expensive because of things that I support. Neither half of your assumption is correct.
 
You do realize you just avoided my comment, right? The fact is democrats and many of their supports have come out and said flat out that if prices go up people will support a UHC. Why exactly would they work to avoid such a result when if they get that result they will surely win?

As for your comment, prices there are going up and has been going up since they put the systems in place. All you are doing is pretending that the costs have been lowered by your system and the system here is expensive because of things that I support. Neither half of your assumption is correct.

When I advocated a two Tiered system I was answering your question.

And no pretending, no saying someone said anything. It's a straight up fact that those system spend less, across the board. Add to it that we can remove health care from employment.
 
When I advocated a two Tiered system I was answering your question.

And no pretending, no saying someone said anything. It's a straight up fact that those system spend less, across the board. Add to it that we can remove health care from employment.

If that is your answer then it seems unattached from my comment. Regardless, I have already went over that. Put in another way your system would not lower current costs as it has not in other places. Perhaps some of the things that go along with your plan would, but your main action would do nothing beneficial to costs.
 
If that is your answer then it seems unattached from my comment. Regardless, I have already went over that. Put in another way your system would not lower current costs as it has not in other places. Perhaps some of the things that go along with your plan would, but your main action would do nothing beneficial to costs.

To any significant decrease, nothing will lower do that. We like busienss, and people make serious cash with healthcare. That is not going to change. And groups like the AMA will make sure of that. But, we can limit and control costs best with a two teired single payer system. We allow those who can afford extra to buy extra, but make sure adequate care is there for all. Providing more access is beneficial. And removing it from employment is also beneficial.
 
I'm confused. Was Obamacare not upheld 5-4 by SCOTUS? I've been wrong before but I was pretty sure that John Roberts was the deciding vote, much to the dismay of many.

Every President gets a library and also a fancy inauguration. I view it as a slap in the face to us commoners. It's just a big party for those who pay less taxes than you do because they make more money than you do:). Even the worst Presidents get a free legacy. But right now, Obama thinks he is King and you know what - he is the King. Not sure what that says about us but it is what it is...




Obama is very much worried about his Legacy. I would have you look up his comments over moving the US into the Far East. Already he is looking for his Presidential Library in Chicago. So far UIC where he and his Wife Worked looks like they are the Front runner.

Except SCOTUS isn't backing him on this issue, As they Already ruled. Hence the Obama Regulation Now!
 
To any significant decrease, nothing will lower do that. We like busienss, and people make serious cash with healthcare. That is not going to change. And groups like the AMA will make sure of that. But, we can limit and control costs best with a two teired single payer system. We allow those who can afford extra to buy extra, but make sure adequate care is there for all. Providing more access is beneficial. And removing it from employment is also beneficial.

I'm not entirely sure why you expect that I will talk of something that you brought up out of the wind when responding to a comment of mine. I have no interest in this talk and like I said, it does not lower cost and has no real ability to control them either. Parroting myths is not something I find smart and is not something I will humor with you today.
 
Back
Top Bottom