Page 64 of 154 FirstFirst ... 1454626364656674114 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 640 of 1534

Thread: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

  1. #631
    Guru
    mmi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    12-05-16 @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,637

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You have no understanding of basic economics, no understanding of the role of the govt. and as has been shown no understanding of the taxes you pay or their purpose.
    You say that, but you can't back it up. Just like everything else. When did you show that I have "no understanding of the taxes [I] pay or their purpose"? You just repeat this crap over and over and over. Why? Do you think anyone believes it? Well, I guess some do.

    >>December 2007 146 million

    Bubble high. Led to the crash.

    >>January 2009 142 million

    And dropping like a stone. You want to take advantage of the fact that Obama was elected in the middle of an economic calamity to blame it on him. Americans know better. Two terms.

    >>January 2011 139 million

    May 2015 149 million. Recovery through proven Democratic policies. Again required after failed GOP policies once again put us in serious trouble.

    >>January 2009 10.6 trillion in debt

    True.

    >>Current 18.2 trillion in debt

    Also true.

    Dec 2009 $12.3 trillion (Up $1.7 trillion before Obama had been in office for even one year. Almost all the consequence of Bush's FY2009 budget that I'm CERTAIN you will mindlessly repeat yer same stupid lies about.)

    Dec 2010 $14 trillion

    Dec 2011 $15.2 trillion

    Dec 2012 $16.4 trillion

    Dec 2013 $ 17.3 trillion

    Dec 2014 $18.1 trillion

    These totals reflect both the structural deficit that Obama inherited and the very weak economy that he had to nurse along. He couldn't end the very expensive and counter-productive Bush tax cuts to the wealthy for quite a while. He had fund an expansion of income-support programs for the same reason. And he didn't have the resources required to spur the growth needed to expand revenues through investments in education, infrastructure, and R & D.

    The simple fact is that SSE put the US economy in the intensive care unit. Obama had to spend money to pay the hospital bill. Then the patient could only be eased back into a work schedule while the recovery continued. I don't expect you to accept this reality. Thb, I don't expect you to even understand it. I can't help that.

    >>GDP when Bush took office 10.2 trillion

    You keep repeating that lie. GDP was $10.5 trillion in Q4 2000. Dubya was inaugurated in Jan 2001. Why do you keep lying about this?

    >>the end of 2008 it was 14.7 trillion.

    In Q4 2008, it was $14.5 trillion. Another lie. And it was $14.4 trillion in Q1 2009 when Obama was inaugurated. It was still there six months later. We were in a ditch that resulted from SSE. Here it is:

    GDP_Q1_2008_Q1_2011.jpg

    >>Obama adds 842 billion in tax funded stimulus

    One-third tax cuts.

    >>showed some GDP growth, none of which was sustainable

    ??? It's been sustained ever since.

    GDP_Q1_2008_Q2_2015.jpg

    Yeah, OK, we started to slip on the ice a couple of times. But we quickly regained our footing. Not bad for a Kenyan.

    >>or felt by the electorate.

    What does that mean? Who are you to say what the electorate "felt" about GDP growth? You act like it just didn't happen. Pfft.

    >>Obama loses Congress

    We lost the House in 2010. Some of our people didn't vote. (Jerks!) Teabaggers were on the warpath. "He he's an Arab." "No, ma'am, he's not." We lost the Senate in 2014 because we has a bunch of seats up in Red states. (And because, as Fenton has noted, they ran away from Obama.) That won't happen again anytime soon. You guys will be a bit on the hot seat this next time.

    >>Since you blame Bush for the recession

    I blame his policies. He had terrible advisors. He didn't know who to listen to. That's what I blame him for.

    >>wonder why the Democrat Controlled Congress from January 2007 to January 2011 didn't stop him??

    Well, he wasn't in office after Jan 2009, so I guess that takes care of the last two of those four years. By Jan 2007, the dye was cast, wasn't it? An eighteen-month long recession was coming at the end of the year. The worst since the end of the Second World War. Business activity fell by nearly five percent. Stop him from what? We needed a time machine.
    "I loved him. You loved him. What good have we done him? Love. Look at yourself. They have a name for faces like that." Anna Schmidt, in The Third Man Anna walks away

  2. #632
    Sage
    ObamacareFail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    10,437

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by jpn View Post
    Good point. For five straight years the ACA has cost less than the CBO projections. Obamacare

    When you're right, you're right!
    What you are missing out on is the fact that less money is now being spent on healthcare because after obamacare became law, millions who are insured can no longer afford to use that insurance. Rather then it being something useful, it is now just something they are unconstitutionally mandated to purchase.

  3. #633
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Last Seen
    07-18-15 @ 12:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    731

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    So conservatives support or wish to maintain the ACA subsidies? Where are these conservatives, again? I don't know about republicans as I have honestly stopped paying them any mind, but I don't recall ever hearing a conservative not opposed to the ACA subsidies.
    Republicans and tea party types are both on the conservative end of the spectrum. Tea party types generally opposed maintaining the subsidies on ideological grounds where non-tea-party Republicans generally supporting maintaining them for practical reasons. Taking healthcare away from millions of people, mostly in Republican districts, would have been a disaster both for those millions of people and for the GOP's political prospects. Tea party folks don't think about stuff like that, but mainstream Republicans certainly do. Kennedy and Roberts are mainstream Republicans.

    There also is the matter of the law. The Supreme Court at least isn't supposed to decide cases on the basis of their politics, they're supposed to apply legal precedent, and the legal precedent is very clear that they are to interpret even poorly drafted statutory language in a way that gives effect to the legislature's intention. Even if Roberts or Kennedy personally might have preferred not having the subsidies, they would have had to pretty far gone to just flatly ignore the way courts are supposed to interpret statutes like the 3 tea party Justices did.

  4. #634
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:40 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,533

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    I didn't take "Government class." I was busy studying political science, public administration, and American history in graduate school.

    The reactionary line yer pushing would come as quite a surprise to a great many Americans, including the ones who fought and died to defend our democracy. The funny thing is the way you clowns you "Democrat" as an adjective. You don't want to refer to yer political opponents as "Democratic" because it makes people think of "democratic" something almost universally regarded as good in the US.
    You did take a Government class if you were studying Poly Sci and Public Admin. Guess it was a failure at your college to teach you correct information because if you actually read American History or studied any Poly Sci as you say. If you read the Federalist papers, specifically No. 10 you'd find James Madison defined the form of US Government. If you read the US Constitution in Article IV you will find this; " "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government." Then there is this thing called Electoral College, it's been around since 1787 and still used to elect the President. Senators before 1913 were elected by state legislatures.

    So you wanna argue with me about the fact that the US Government is a Federal Constitutional Republic?

    My line is not reactionary, your words are typical of revisionist who dislikes the US Constitution because it prevents you from doing things willy nilly. The fact you are using those who fought in wars for the US as an attempt to make your comments a sacred cow is deplorable and no different then Republicans who use they "hate" are freedom as an argument to go kill people.

    No, me saying Democrat is because that's the term for members of the Democratic National Party. I am also not denying the fact Democrats are a bunch of populist who think "Democracy" is our form of government. That's the DNP (DNC) position. No, rather I have an issue when someone who claims to love democracy so much but lives in the bounds of Constitution and justifies the Supreme Court ruling as making something the law of the land. Kinda ironic isn't? You are using Constitutional Republic system yet claim to be "Democratic".

    You are a hypocrite on the system. Fact you can't realize that makes you a sad excuse for someone who "studied" Poly Sci.
    Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office. H.L Mencken

  5. #635
    Sage
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:51 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    7,866

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by ObamacareFail View Post
    At least you are admitting that Hussein Obamacare can be repealed with a well articulated plan. That's a start.
    ...yes, they could repeal it outright if they just paid every american $10,000.... the "if's" on both fronts are equally unlikely.

    The PPACA is here to stay. Deal with it, Republicans. Stop living in the past or thinking you can return to the past and start looking forward.
    Last edited by upsideguy; 06-26-15 at 06:40 PM.

  6. #636
    Sage
    ObamacareFail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    10,437

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    LOL Rubio.....you are quite the optimist,. He doesn't have a chance in hell of even getting VP with Jeb taking all the wind out of his sails. The election will be a competition between the economies of Clinton and Obama against the Bush economy. We will see who wins.....
    I still recall leftwing chants assuring us that there was no way in hell that the republican party was going to take control of the house of reps in 2010 or the senate in 2014. Hollery Klinton and Jeb Bush's poll numbers at this point in time are based on little more then name recognition. The race is far from being over. And I still recall how Hollery Klinton was going to be a sure thing in 2008.

  7. #637
    Sage
    ObamacareFail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    10,437

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    Perhaps in Texas, reality is an alien concept. Like it or not, after 2016, if the Republicans hold the Senate it will be by one or two seats, not the 60 needed to rule the roost. Even if you have a Republican President, which I hope you do, you'll lack complete control of the agenda and a vote to repeal the ACA without something to replace it is dead in the water in the Senate.

    One could argue, after the past 6 plus years, your "doer" cred is a little tarnished.
    Actually I think within the next few years, obamacare will become a very hot potato that even the majority of democrats want to get rid of. Even some of them now accept that it is a 900 lb gorilla on their backs. The American middle class that does not qualify for the subsidies are not going to accept too many more 34 to 70% rate hikes. Despite the insane Supreme Court ruling....I think obamacare's days are numbered.

  8. #638
    Sage
    ObamacareFail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    10,437

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    It's not how it works. The subsidies are funded by taxes not the other insureds. The issue with the exchanges is the low number of young healthy people signing up - they do subsidize the old and sick just like in every employer plan, and unless they join up, the rates will be higher to reflect the actual cost of insuring older, sicker people.
    You are arguing against yourself. On one hand you claim the subsidies are not paid by the other insured while on the otherhand you in effect admit that it's not working as well as it should because not enough of the young and healthy are signing up. And how can any human being be proud of making a young and healthy person pay higher rates to subsidize the old and sick many of whom are sick do to unhealthy eating habits, lack of excercise, drug, or alcohol abuse?

  9. #639
    Sage
    ObamacareFail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Earth
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    10,437

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by MrT View Post
    Sorry, sport. You lost whatever credibility you thought you had as soon as I noticed a link to Motherjones. I don't need studies. My own personal experiance is enough for me. I dropped out of the primary insurance market because my premiums were going to go up nearly 300% and my deductible was going to go up 500%. What's the benefit in having health insurance when it costs more then my home mortgage?

  10. #640
    Guru
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,156

    re: Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    A public option is automatic enrollment with no premiums, because they are embedded in your normal tax rate. Because of that, there is no need for subsidies to offset the cost.

    At no time has anyone suggested the federal government start a health insurance company, offering plans to the general public through the exchanges or otherwise.
    Your latter sentence is exactly what the public health insurance option concept was.

    There was no autoenrollment (it was to have been simply another option competing in the exchanges), there would indeed have been premiums because it was required by law to be self-sustaining on premium revenue like any other insurance company, and subsidies could indeed be applied to those premiums as with any other plan in the exchanges.

Posting Permissions

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