• 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!

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

Read more @: [/FONT][/COLOR]Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies

Story just now breaking. More info to come soon. Millions of Americans get to keep their healthcare. A huge win for the Obama admin.

:shrug: Not surprised. SCOTUS knew that this would have majorly hurt Obamacare, possibly even kill it so in order to preserve the status quo it was upheld. I doubt very seriously that whether it was unconstitutional or not actually mattered. After all, they did turn a "fine" into a "tax".
 
I guess you never read history and how a president eased the nation into war against Germany. I guess you never read about Ronald Reagan and how he convinced another nation to tear down a wall.

Those are nice stories, but there was a lot more to both of those (not sure which nation eased into war with Germany - which one?) than mere rhetoric and powers of persuasion. The fall of the Berlin Wall was the culmination of many years of efforts and of many events totally outside Reagan's control. 20 or 10 or even 5 years earlier Reagan could have given that speech 100 times and not a thing happens. Surely you know this.

My politicians are leaders, go ahead back a follower....here they are called cowards. If the great Obama isn't as able as a lowly Canadian Prairie preacher who was able to sway a nation to a great idea.

I've read just the cliff notes version of the 'swaying' and it took decades and started with a single, relatively small province. You're talking about a complete overhaul of a healthcare system of a vast, diverse country with 10 times the population, overnight.

But thanks for admitting Obama is an inept leader.

He's inept because he tried and got something done after decades of inaction.... got it. If only he'd have used his Green Lantern Super Powers he could have changed the world!!
 
....:shrug: because FDR did it, and we don't like to change things that FDR did because Mean Old Republicans Hate Poor People?
Irrespective, it's time to move on.

And I blame the current mess (the ACA) on moneyed interests (the insurance industry, etc.) purchasing Congressional influence.
 
If you don't read it then how do you know you don't like what's in it, right?
You can't tell what's in it by reading it, silly!

We had to pass it, so that we could challenge it, so that John Roberts could tell us what should have been in it.
 
ludin said:
congrats you get subsidy. that is why it was lower. mine went up and has gone up drastically due to obamacare.
I don't get subsidies to pay for my healthcare. yet i get to pay for all those subsidies that you enjoy.

Just as I pay for many things you enjoy...it's called being a member of society. If you don't like it, try the alternative: there's a fairly lax immigration law in Somalia right now.

Anthony60 said:
Well, I can think of thousands of people in my company alone whose premiums went up. Obama said I'd save $2500 a year. today he claimed $1800 a year, so I guess he is confused. $2500 a year savings because of Obamacare. So, over the past 5 years, where is my $12,500?

First, I'm curious whether you can actually think of thousands of such people. It's pretty difficult for most people to keep more than a hundred or so others straight, let alone thousands. Have you actually looked at their premiums? All however-many thousands of them?

Second, I'm curious whether you can show this was actually due to the ACA, rather than some other factor.

Finally, as I recall, what was originally on the table was a single payer system, which conservatives squashed because it was just too "socialist" or something. Instead, it was argued that opening exchanges would free the forces of the marketplace, driving prices down. Are you saying that perhaps market forces aren't the miracle conservatives have thought?
 
Just as I pay for many things you enjoy...it's called being a member of society.
What things do you specifically pay for that I enjoy? I'm curious.
 
Born here over 60 years ago. I don't like what the right-wing conserva-nuts have turned it into. Bye-bye!

Grow its economy ?

Balanced its budget ?

Created a Surplus ?

What's not to like ???
 
....:shrug: because FDR did it, and we don't like to change things that FDR did because Mean Old Republicans Hate Poor People?

And gratefully, these changes aren't going anywhere either. They will be here for decades, thankfully. I say it's long overdue.
 
That is the problem. there is nothing to stop the SCOTUS. I mean congress can fix the bill,
but as we see here we have the SCOTUS doing an unconstitutional thing and re-writing a established law which is not their authority.
that is where scalia just nails them to the wall.

he is right words now mean nothing. what is worse is now the federal government is or a federal organization is not considered a state.
Yes, but you believe the decision is wrong in your POV, but as you can see many others disagree. (and I say this with no malice or animosity, whatesover)

That's the way court cases go, particularly in appeals courts, of which the SC is the final court of appeal.

If the ruling went the other-way there'd be just as many similar complaints - all these politicos drumming-up their bases by claiming the ruling is 'unconstitutional' etc., are playing for the media. They know the ruling stands. And if the ruling was truly that bad, there'd be the political-will to re-legislate to specifically nullify the SC objections.
 
Ockham said:
What things do you specifically pay for that I enjoy? I'm curious.

As I previously mentioned, I paid about $28k in taxes last year. Ludin's claim was that he paid for a subsidy he thinks I'm receiving. If that's so--that is, if he can claim that because he paid taxes, he's paying for something for me, I can say the same. Everyone benefits from government in some way, and from being a member of society in some way. Did you drive on a road today, or ever gotten something shipped to you on a road? Or, did the Russians/Chinese/Islamic Terrorists/South American Cartels not shoot you today? Is there a justice system of which you can avail yourself? Etc. Etc. If so, you can thank everyone who pays taxes--including me (and yourself, presumably).
 
You definitely have that right.

Also, in a macro economics sense it's very easy to see when you have a profit-making layer between the funds & the service (i.e. the insurance companies), there will be more costs (and more inefficiencies). Ditching the insurance companies will save us about 27% of our healthcare dollar (if I remember correctly), which would easily cover everyone.

This is what happens when you have a governing structure that is open to the highest bidder, and money flows in virtually unabated - in such a system moneyed interests will prevail.



You are the first American in 20 years who has shown a true understanding of what it is. Kudos to you, you have done some homework. I would say any figure between 25 and 30% would be accurate in terms of initial outright savings. However, thew next step is to reduce the profit aspect in the delivery end, community owned, not for profit hospitals.

Having said that, we have a giant problem there with the type of funding, but its a side issue.

Now, you combine all the programs, bam, bye bye a whole lot of unnecessary bureaucracy.

What I have never understood is that the US more or less invented the public school system, community owned schools on a universal not for profit footing. But, you refuse to see the same benefits for something as important as health care.

As strange as this may sound, I believe Canada's "nice" reputation is in part due to our health care, our lower crime rate, indeed our community oriented culture our growing unity as a nation, all have been bolstered by health care.
 
Yes, but you believe the decision is wrong in your POV, but as you can see many others disagree. (and I say this with no malice or animosity, whatesover)

That's the way court cases go, particularly in appeals courts, of which the SC is the final court of appeal.

If the ruling went the other-way there'd be just as many similar complaints - all these politicos drumming-up their bases by claiming the ruling is 'unconstitutional' etc., are playing for the media. They know the ruling stands. And if the ruling was truly that bad, there'd be the political-will to re-legislate to specifically nullify the SC objections.

It should be noted that this case was not about constitutional grounds but the actual wording of the legislation.
 
As I previously mentioned, I paid about $28k in taxes last year. Ludin's claim was that he paid for a subsidy he thinks I'm receiving. If that's so--that is, if he can claim that because he paid taxes, he's paying for something for me, I can say the same. Everyone benefits from government in some way, and from being a member of society in some way. Did you drive on a road today, or ever gotten something shipped to you on a road? Or, did the Russians/Chinese/Islamic Terrorists/South American Cartels not shoot you today? Is there a justice system of which you can avail yourself? Etc. Etc. If so, you can thank everyone who pays taxes--including me (and yourself, presumably).

The roads in my State are paid by my state, county roads like the one I live on are paid for by taxes taken at the county level. Unless you live in my county or my state, what and how much exactly do you pay that I would "enjoy" exactly? Quantify it for me. I pay my own way - I enjoy Netflix ... do you pay my Netflix bill? I enjoy my internet service, I enjoy my car... did you subsidize my car and how much did you subsidize so that I can thank you properly? The justice system was here before you or I paid taxes to support it and it will be here long after - I "enjoy" the benefits of the justice system... hm... I guess I could say I benefit by it's existence but I don't really have a choice if I want to continue to live in the United States - it's not like I can suddenly stop paying taxes because then I'd really WOULD benefit by your tax dollars as an inmate in a prison.

So let me just state for the record, you don't pay anything that you don't already have to pay by LAW... by LAW you and I pay taxes which keep interstate roads, which keep an military, which keeps a government. We do not have a choice, yet you want me to THANK you for paying your LAWFUL taxes because I benefit by you doing what you have no choice but to do - and that is pay your taxes if you indeed make enough money per year to qualify. :lamo

I'd like it better if you paid my car payment and my electric bill while you're at it.
 
Maybe the Cons will finally stop trying to rely on legislation from the bench. Perhaps they will get smart and actually work WITH the PPACA (fix the legislation, where appropriate and expand state exchanges), because they are out of options in working against it.

No, how on earth are the new and current republicans in the house going to get their "anti-Obama care/anti-Obama" brownie points with their prospective voters if they are no longer able to vote against (for the umpteenth time) Obama care ;)

They have plenty of time to keep repealing it to no avail, it's not like they have anything important to do, you know like run an country :roll:
 
No, how on earth are the new and current republicans in the house going to get their "anti-Obama care/anti-Obama" brownie points with their prospective voters if they are no longer able to vote against (for the umpteenth time) Obama care ;)

They have plenty of time to keep repealing it to no avail, it's not like they have anything important to do, you know like run an country :roll:

They had time to support BHO on free trade when his own party did not. As for Obamacare, if the Repubs take the White House in 2016 its days will be numbered.
 
Just as I pay for many things you enjoy...it's called being a member of society. If you don't like it, try the alternative: there's a fairly lax immigration law in Somalia right now.

ie I can't actually address the issue with any kind of logic.
I don't owe you healthcare.




First, I'm curious whether you can actually think of thousands of such people. It's pretty difficult for most people to keep more than a hundred or so others straight, let alone thousands. Have you actually looked at their premiums? All however-many thousands of them?

Second, I'm curious whether you can show this was actually due to the ACA, rather than some other factor.

Finally, as I recall, what was originally on the table was a single payer system, which conservatives squashed because it was just too "socialist" or something. Instead, it was argued that opening exchanges would free the forces of the marketplace, driving prices down. Are you saying that perhaps market forces aren't the miracle conservatives have thought?

The public option wasn't just squashed by republicans but democrats as well. so this pandering lie is done and over with.

no only democrats were saying that almost every republican knew that this was a lie as well.
you can't force coverage on people and expect prices to decrease.

so far that has been the case.

Obamacare -- Bad for Employers, Bad for Employees - Forbes
 
They had time to support BHO on free trade when his own party did not. As for Obamacare, if the Repubs take the White House in 2016 its days will be numbered.

Your optimism is commendable, if puzzling.
 
Yes, but you believe the decision is wrong in your POV, but as you can see many others disagree. (and I say this with no malice or animosity, whatesover)

That's the way court cases go, particularly in appeals courts, of which the SC is the final court of appeal.

If the ruling went the other-way there'd be just as many similar complaints - all these politicos drumming-up their bases by claiming the ruling is 'unconstitutional' etc., are playing for the media. They know the ruling stands. And if the ruling was truly that bad, there'd be the political-will to re-legislate to specifically nullify the SC objections.

no one for this has shown me where the SCOTUS has the authority or the IRS for that matter to re-write the law.
which is what they did. that is unconstitutional. they do not have the ability to re-write a law or change the wording of a law yet they did it anyway.

there is a political will we are just going to have to wait till 2016 when Obama is gone in order to do it.
 
no one for this has shown me where the SCOTUS has the authority or the IRS for that matter to re-write the law.
which is what they did. that is unconstitutional. they do not have the ability to re-write a law or change the wording of a law yet they did it anyway.

there is a political will we are just going to have to wait till 2016 when Obama is gone in order to do it.

Yep, they've gone from re-interpreting the Constitution and what words mean to re-interpreting what legislation means. Why have a congress, just pass a few blanket bills and allow the SCOTUS to re-interpret their meaning as the demand requires.
 
Back
Top Bottom