• 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]

Not really. Remember all those points you got crushed on and promptly ignored earlier?

Healthcare is a common good. I benefit from you having good health, and vice versa. It is common sense that we set up an appropriate mechanism to ensure we have optimal health which leads to optimal productivity.

I'm not in the 1%....but probably in the 5% and possibly in the 2%, and I owe my success to the hundreds of healthy people who are productive and can funnel their money to me eventually, rather than being ill.

The difference between you and me is that I understand that, while you are bound and determined to stay willfully ignorant of that fact.

LOL, your idea of crushing is nothing more than a personal power trip based upon zero credibility.

I find a lot of people like you who have no idea where the subsidy money comes from and also have no idea adopting that entitlement mentality and having someone else pay for their own personal responsibility issues.

You obviously have no idea what ACA is vs. private insurance. No one is forced to pay for your private insurance premiums but rather choose to purchase the same insurance. That isn't the case with Obamacare as my tax dollars and yours goes to fund the exchanges so we are no only paying for someone else's insurance with our tax dollars but also paying for our own premiums. you seem to have a problem with personal responsibility.

Ignorant is a term liberals use to divert from reality for the ignorant ones here are those who buy the spending in the name of compassion rhetoric of the left only to pile on debt and have no true compassionate results. Anyone here who believes you can lower costs by adding millions of high risk people to the pool are indeed the ignorant ones. This is all about giving the Federal govt. more money to spend just like they have done with SS and Medicare. Too bad you continue to bury your head in the sand.
 
Revisonist history or just your opinion?

Revisionist history, 0bama continued with Bush's policies and doing the same thing Bush was doing so I never understood why liberals don't like Bush, 0bama and Bush are the same man.

000.jpg
 
LOL, your idea of crushing is nothing more than a personal power trip based upon zero credibility.

I find a lot of people like you who have no idea where the subsidy money comes from and also have no idea adopting that entitlement mentality and having someone else pay for their own personal responsibility issues.

You obviously have no idea what ACA is vs. private insurance. No one is forced to pay for your private insurance premiums but rather choose to purchase the same insurance. That isn't the case with Obamacare as my tax dollars and yours goes to fund the exchanges so we are no only paying for someone else's insurance with our tax dollars but also paying for our own premiums. you seem to have a problem with personal responsibility.

Ignorant is a term liberals use to divert from reality for the ignorant ones here are those who buy the spending in the name of compassion rhetoric of the left only to pile on debt and have no true compassionate results. Anyone here who believes you can lower costs by adding millions of high risk people to the pool are indeed the ignorant ones. This is all about giving the Federal govt. more money to spend just like they have done with SS and Medicare. Too bad you continue to bury your head in the sand.

Actually, 'ignorant' is a term I use when someone doesn't really know any of the facts on the topic they are pontificating on.

'Willfully Ignorant' is a term that refers to people that have been given appropriate information, but refuse to accept it.
 
Actually, 'ignorant' is a term I use when someone doesn't really know any of the facts on the topic they are pontificating on.

'Willfully Ignorant' is a term that refers to people that have been given appropriate information, but refuse to accept it.

Is it fact or a lie that Federal Income tax dollars collected from actual American taxpayers are being used to provide subsidies for individuals for their health insurance?

Is it fact or a lie that the American taxpayer dollars are not being used to supplement private insurance premiums?

Is it fact or a lie that Medicare was created as a pay as you go system and the money put on budget so that it actually was used to fund Operational expenses of the Federal Govt?

Is it fact or a lie that SS and Medicare are trillions in unfunded liabilities that has created a Ponzi scheme?

Let's see who is willfully ignorant
 
And your fallback is to claim everything in healthcare was flowers and puppies until the ACA came along, and now it's going to be horrible... NEXT year!

I never made any such claim. I have stated multiple times that reform was needed. However Obamacare is not reform. It is a government takeover of the health insurance industry by way of mandates. it has made health insurance for the majority of Americans prohibitively expensive. You are the one claiming that everything is peaches and cream since the passage of Obamacare.
 
I don't know what to tell you man. The studies all found otherwise, we implemented the policy and it has in fact turned out as the studies predicted. Which is no surprise, since it had already played out that way in the states that did similar things earlier. Instead of trying to argue with me as if we were still back in 2009 trying to predict what would happen, you should be focusing on trying to figure out how you went wrong. Here is a suggestion for where you might start- you're just making random guesses rather than looking things up or reading studies and whatnot.

That is a complete line of bull. I am not impressed by biased studies with pre-conceived results. I am more concerned with broken promises....such as: "If you like your policy, you can keep it"....."and If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"........and "The ACA will save the average family $2500.00 annually". I am also concerned at massively higher rates....not to mention midsized and small employers shrinking their full time workforce to avoid some of the unbearable costs of the obamacare employer mandates. Much of what the right predicted has come true. The left sitting back and pretending that is not the case, merely because obamacare has not yet collapsed is amusing, but unimpressive. The worst of the mandates will not hit until 2016. If everything was just peachy with obamacare, your party would still control congress.
 
The little charity I work with has about 70 uninsured men. My brother is an ER doc. So I have a decent understanding on both ends what the poor can and cannot do and how they get healthcare. And what I know without any doubt is the way you describe our system and how the poor access it is completely ignorant.

Yes, lots of uninsured go to the ER for routine care, because that is their only real option. And free clinics do great work and I admire all the medical providers who participate in them. But what you're doing is concluding that because these things exist and some people manage to get care through them that they are even approaching an adequate solution for the vast majority of the uninsured. Those things just are not adequate, and every person who looks at the problem knows this without the slightest doubt. I'd tell you stories about the people I know pretty well and the problems they have accessing long term care for their chronic conditions, but if you don't already know this it's a waste of time because you don't want to really look into it.

The bottom line is the fact that we need Remote Area Medical Volunteer Corp in the U.S. is testimony to your misunderstanding.

Hidden Hurt: Desperate for medical care, the uninsured flock by the hundreds to a remote corner of Virginia for the chance to see a doctor

View attachment 67186421

I am not going to play the game of my experiances against your experiances other then to point out that I don't buy the baloney as I have close relatives in the medical industry including one who had personal knowledge of the indigent care in the hospital system. The vast majority of the poor qualify for medicaid. I am betting that the majority of people pictured in the link you posted have or qualify for some form of medicare and are not restricted to showing up enmasse on a grassy field begging to see a doctor.
 
I am not impressed by biased studies with pre-conceived results.

LOL. So basically, you're openly advocating for just doing whatever Limbaugh or whoever tells you, regardless of whether it comports with factual reality. If reality and what Limbaugh tells you, ignore reality. That's the gist of your approach, right?
 
LOL. So basically, you're openly advocating for just doing whatever Limbaugh or whoever tells you, regardless of whether it comports with factual reality. If reality and what Limbaugh tells you, ignore reality. That's the gist of your approach, right?

I am a big fan of Limbaugh, if for no other reason, he is such an annoyance to libruls, however you are making it up as you go along. Limbaugh is merely your fallback to distract from your losing the argument.
 
I am a big fan of Limbaugh, if for no other reason, he is such an annoyance to libruls, however you are making it up as you go along. Limbaugh is merely your fallback to distract from your losing the argument.

I'm not specifically trying to argue that Limbaugh is the one directing you what to believe, although I seem to have hit that one on the head lol. I'm pointing out that if you're willing to just ignore studies in general if they don't support your assumptions, then you've become unmoored from reality. Any nutjob can just come along and tell you whatever and you have no way to know if they're telling you the truth or not.
 
I am not going to play the game of my experiances against your experiances other then to point out that I don't buy the baloney as I have close relatives in the medical industry including one who had personal knowledge of the indigent care in the hospital system. The vast majority of the poor qualify for medicaid. I am betting that the majority of people pictured in the link you posted have or qualify for some form of medicare and are not restricted to showing up enmasse on a grassy field begging to see a doctor.

Wrong, at least in Tennessee. Here you have to be poor, and a mother or disabled. If you're just poor, chances are very good you do NOT qualify for Medicaid, and we're talking just above the poverty level poor.
 
I'm not specifically trying to argue that Limbaugh is the one directing you what to believe, although I seem to have hit that one on the head lol. I'm pointing out that if you're willing to just ignore studies in general if they don't support your assumptions, then you've become unmoored from reality. Any nutjob can just come along and tell you whatever and you have no way to know if they're telling you the truth or not.

You're assuming he CARES about whether it's the truth or not.

I think it's clear that most of the Anti-ACA people here don't.
 
Wrong, at least in Tennessee. Here you have to be poor, and a mother or disabled. If you're just poor, chances are very good you do NOT qualify for Medicaid, and we're talking just above the poverty level poor.

As has often been remarked, the ACA made Medicaid into the program most people assumed it already was.

In the expansion states, at least.
 
Right, Conservatives hated Bush so much that they elected him twice.

Sorry, but I think you're going to have to find better evidence other than just a photoshop meme to support your argument. lol

Holy crap!

We elected Bush 4 times counting 0bama.

Next time you are going to ask me to prove that the earth is round. Oy oy oy lmmfao.
 
holy crap!

We elected bush 4 times counting 0bama.

Next time you are going to ask me to prove that the earth is round. Oy oy oy lmmfao.

holy crap, batman.....are you are a flat earther?? Oy vey is right. lol
 
holy crap, batman.....are you are a flat earther?? Oy vey is right. lol

No I am not a flat earther but some liberals have even asked me to prove that the earth is round even though is a common knowledge. Oy.. them liberals....go figure.. lols
 
I'm not specifically trying to argue that Limbaugh is the one directing you what to believe, although I seem to have hit that one on the head lol.

It looks as if you are debating yourself on that one. Just because the left seems to follow political masters does not mean the right does. I like Rush, however I don't take marching orders from him or anyone else. You brought him up merely because you could not mount a good comeback to the point I was making.


I'm pointing out that if you're willing to just ignore studies in general if they don't support your assumptions, then you've become unmoored from reality. Any nutjob can just come along and tell you whatever and you have no way to know if they're telling you the truth or not.

I don't ignore studies, son. I just use common sense when deciding which ones to take seriously. For instance on the global warming hysteria. I am still awaiting the global cooling that many lunatic studies in the 1970s pretty much guaranteed that the planet was headed for a big chill and that it was man-made. Eventually that hysterical movement flipped to man-made global warming. In the last several years, the humiliation has led them to break in the term: "Climate Change" (man-made ofcourse). Just because an issue is put to a study does not make it absolute or settled science. Many of these so-called studies are biased based on who funded them or commissioned them.
 
I don't ignore studies, son. I just use common sense when deciding which ones to take seriously.

That's the same thing. If you're accepting those studies that happen to align with your assumptions and ignoring those studies that conflict with your assumptions, that is no different than just ignoring all studies and going with your assumptions.
 
No I am not a flat earther but some liberals have even asked me to prove that the earth is round even though is a common knowledge. Oy.. them liberals....go figure.. lols

...ain't no such thing as common sense nor common knowledge. You make the assertion that the earth is round with me, you better be prepared to show credible third party evidence to support that assertion. I sure as hill won't simply take your rank amateur word for it....;)

... than again, I probably would pass on the earth is round claim.... we have yahoos on this board that have never studied law yet claim there is NO legal defense of certain SCOTUS decisions... they have ZERO expertise, but tell us they know more than every lawyer in the country (I just love that deadly mix of arrogance and ignorance) .... them's are the id**ts that need to do the 'splainin' (or need to find themselves an AOL chatroom)..
 
Last edited:
You guys have been wrong in predicting these cases again and again. When will you consider you know know the law or the Constitution as well as you think?

Well, in fairness, they are completely wrong about a lot of other stuff too.
 
Well, in fairness, they are completely wrong about a lot of other stuff too.

Noticed how you ran from my post and tough questions as you continue to parrot the liberal talking points without doing any actual research to verify the rhetoric you are told. How would you know that conservatives are wrong about other things as well since results don't matter to you and other Obama supporters
 
Back
Top Bottom