Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 86

Thread: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

  1. #61
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    On the birth control issue, sounds like it's the individual physician's fault. If a drug is necessary to treat an illness and it's the same drug that is also used for birth control (as in The Pill), only an idiot doctor, or one who doesn't like you, will prescribe it as birth control.

  2. #62
    Educator

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of Nigh
    Last Seen
    10-13-17 @ 11:25 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,152

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Might I add that Romneycare was intended for liberal massachusetts. In that specific context, it would have been more acceptable. But a top down, one size fits all program is destined to upset a lot of people.
    Exactly. The People of Mass. wanted to have a HC system and they got what they wanted.

    To add upon what you did say....Its a state by state issue NOT a Federal issue. Thats where I have the biggest issue with Obamacare.
    Know the truth and the truth will make you mad, because the truth has no agenda.

  3. #63
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,001

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    We haven't had a free market since at least the 70's. Health insurance worked just fine before that (when it was actual insurance), and it wasn't breaking families financially.
    So what changed?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  4. #64
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    So what changed?
    Mandates for comprehensive coverage, which have led to overutilization, and lack of market competition.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  5. #65
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,010

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    your posts demonstrate the forest/trees phenomenon
    No, my post demonstrates the "Responding to what people actually say" phenomenon. you should try it sometimes.

    Dana did not claim that the Mandate was concieved by Heritage (Which is also a questionable comment in and of itself, since they weren't hte first to suggest such).

    He claimed THE LAW, ie the entiretity of ACA, was "concieved" by Heritage. This isn't just false, it's absurd to a staggering degree.

    If he meant something else he should've said something else. You shuffling in to try and clean up the mess and failing to actually respond to any of the legitimate, factual, accurate points I made doesn't magically change that.

  6. #66
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,089

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Health insurance worked just fine before that(when it was actual insurance), and it wasn't breaking families financially.
    Historically, the free market system has been based on upfront payment. Meaning, no money, no doctor. If that is the standard for fine, okay - let's go back to pre-1960s. See how many people can afford treatment at the exorbitant prices demanded by doctors which have historically been a luxury of the rich.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  7. #67
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,173

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No, my post demonstrates the "Responding to what people actually say" phenomenon. you should try it sometimes.

    Dana did not claim that the Mandate was concieved by Heritage (Which is also a questionable comment in and of itself, since they weren't hte first to suggest such).

    He claimed THE LAW, ie the entiretity of ACA, was "concieved" by Heritage. This isn't just false, it's absurd to a staggering degree.

    If he meant something else he should've said something else. You shuffling in to try and clean up the mess and failing to actually respond to any of the legitimate, factual, accurate points I made doesn't magically change that.
    you want to quibble about the differences
    yep, there are differences between the ACA and what heritage/conservative think tanks proposed
    but as was presented in my earlier post, the basic outline of Obamacare was extracted from the heritage foundation proposals
    there is no legitimate argument to indicate otherwise
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  8. #68
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,696

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I’m still amazed you’re pushing this idiotic trope. The Law (PPACA) wasn't conceived by the Heritage Foundation, and continuing to repeat this idiotic talking point either shows you to be wantonly dishonest or extremely ignorant on this topic. There are a multitude of differences between the ACA and the health care proposals made by the Heritage Foundation (Which formed the foundation for the oft referenced ’93 bill that was supported, and then quickly rejected, by Republicans).

    For example, the Heritage Foundation’s plan didn’t deem individuals up to the age of 27 as “children”. Rather than a significant Medicaid expansion, it suggested to reform welfare under the same principles HF pushed for welfare reform allowing states more “flexability” (including to reduce cover). It even included a Medicare vouchering system similar to Paul Ryan’s proposal; something ACA doesn’t have.

    This of course doesn’t even touch on the notion that you’re referencing a single instance TWENTY YEARS OLD that ignores the fact that individuals beliefs, views, ideas, and solutions can be impacted by the context of the time and situation one is living in. For example, the notion that emergency rooms must treat anyone that comes is a common notion today, a simple fact of life. In ’89, this was a new legislative reality and people on all sides were spitballing in a reactionary manner. Still, even ignoring the glaring contextual differences (and even some significantly policy difference) the only thing you really have is that both mandate health insurance in some fashion or to some degree.

    Claiming that the ACA was “Conceived” by the Heritage Foundation because it has some similar provisions is akin to saying the David Bowie “Conceived” Ice Ice Baby because they included the same hook. Perhaps if you spent half as much time as you devote to desperately rushing to criticize Republicans on actually researching the things you’re going to say you’d possibly have seen that.
    How else can something supported by (all?) demorats and no republicants be blamed on someone else?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  9. #69
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    48,010

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    you want to quibble about the differences
    No, I want to accurately and factually point out that the VAST MAJORITY of the PPACA is wholey different than what Heritage suggested.

    There was one significant similarlity in regards to a mandate. Now you're correct, I could quibble about the differences between their mandate and the ACA's mandate....but I specifically stated in multiple posts that even ignoring those quibbles and accepting the mandate being the same in both....they're still MASSIVELY different in their entirety. And Dana did not state anything about the "mandate", he stated The law which is all encompassing.

    Quibbling about the mandates being different is like Vanilla Ice trying to say he put an extra "Da" in the hook in "Ice Ice Baby"

    Stating that the ACA as an entire law was "conceived" by the Heritage Foundation is like suggesting David Bowie created "Ice Ice Baby" (Word to your mother).

    Again, you keep wanting to create a move the goal posts because you're pissy that I'm actually FACTUALLY and ACCURATELY countering what the poster actually said instead of what you WANT the conversation to be about. You stomping your feet, refusing to put forward an argument of any kind, and desperately trying to change the topic isn't magically going to change it. Temper Tantrums don't tend to be successful debate tactics, so move on to a new one.

  10. #70
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    12-10-13 @ 12:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    74

    Re: U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    you want to quibble about the differences
    yep, there are differences between the ACA and what heritage/conservative think tanks proposed
    but as was presented in my earlier post, the basic outline of Obamacare was extracted from the heritage foundation proposals
    there is no legitimate argument to indicate otherwise
    Unless the people (we all know who they are) who actually crafted the ACA are actually going to credit the same to a wholly dissimilar twenty year plus old proposal by the Heritage Foundation that was rejected by republicans, there is no legitimate argument otherwise. Period. Of course internet nutters and boobs will continue to try to spin otherwise. But then that is why the only place that kind of lunacy has any traction is on the internet. From nutters and boobs who are not wise enough to care about inconvenient facts that make them look like utter booobs. I guess becasue just ignoring inconvenient facts that debunk them makes the nutters and boobs on the internet think it all makes them look sharp and really thoughtful.
    Last edited by Arthur Seward; 12-04-13 at 05:24 PM.

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 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
  •