• 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 Health Care Reform Ruling: Appeals Court Upholds Law

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON — A conservative-leaning panel of federal appellate judges on Tuesday upheld President Barack Obama's health care law as constitutional, helping set up a Supreme Court fight.

If a conservative panel of judges upholds Obamacare, then I am not so sure that SCOTUS is going to strike it down. I also have to ask, what in the hell is Conservative about the judges who made the ruling?

Sure, we need health reform, but a mandate forcing everybody to have health insurance, whether or not they want it, has only one purpose.... To enrich insurance companies. Whatever you say about Obama, we do know one thing... He was bought long ago.

Article is here.
 
You have to have some way to address the uninsured. I don't put much stock in complaints about being made to be responsible. Stil, the courts wil settle that.

However, this was not the best way to address it, and it does help insiurance companies far more than anyone else, and they have the nerve to raise premiums. That said, conservatives who demonized healthcare reform, including the entire death panel nonsense, must accept some of the blame. An honest discussion would have served us better.
 
You have to have some way to address the uninsured. I don't put much stock in complaints about being made to be responsible. Stil, the courts wil settle that.

However, this was not the best way to address it, and it does help insiurance companies far more than anyone else, and they have the nerve to raise premiums. That said, conservatives who demonized healthcare reform, including the entire death panel nonsense, must accept some of the blame. An honest discussion would have served us better.

the debate should have begun with UHC. then the final compromise might have been something that actually helped people, like a hybrid public / private system where the insurance companies compete with medicare for customers and medicare has enough people enrolled that it can help to hold down prices.
 
If a conservative panel of judges upholds Obamacare, then I am not so sure that SCOTUS is going to strike it down. I also have to ask, what in the hell is Conservative about the judges who made the ruling?

Sure, we need health reform, but a mandate forcing everybody to have health insurance, whether or not they want it, has only one purpose.... To enrich insurance companies. Whatever you say about Obama, we do know one thing... He was bought long ago.

Article is here.

Well, conservatives came up with the mandate in the first place if that helps you figure it out.
 
Well, conservatives came up with the mandate in the first place if that helps you figure it out.
Conservatives did this? Interesting. You won't mind if I am a bit skeptical, would you?
Conservatives believe that constitutionally limited governments are essential to the maintenance of liberty and freedom. Obamacare is the antithesis of limited government.

If the supremes uphold this monster we will have to repeal it when we have a Conservative Republican President and a Senate controlled by Conservatives.

Or we arm ourselves and prepare to fight.
 
Conservatives did this? Interesting. You won't mind if I am a bit skeptical, would you?
Conservatives believe that constitutionally limited governments are essential to the maintenance of liberty and freedom. Obamacare is the antithesis of limited government.

If the supremes uphold this monster we will have to repeal it when we have a Conservative Republican President and a Senate controlled by Conservatives.

Or we arm ourselves and prepare to fight.

You can trace it back to the Heritage foundation. History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010 - Health Care Reform - ProCon.org

Really though, it was just brilliant lobbying by the insurance companies. In what could have threatened their existence had Democrats pushed for a single payer system, they managed to get a mandate that everyone has to buy their product. If Obama had gotten what he wanted, it would have had a public option and probably heavy subsidies for lower income Americans to pay for that public option.
 
the debate should have begun with UHC. then the final compromise might have been something that actually helped people, like a hybrid public / private system where the insurance companies compete with medicare for customers and medicare has enough people enrolled that it can help to hold down prices.

I agree. I certainly agree.
 
You can trace it back to the Heritage foundation. History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010 - Health Care Reform - ProCon.org

Really though, it was just brilliant lobbying by the insurance companies. In what could have threatened their existence had Democrats pushed for a single payer system, they managed to get a mandate that everyone has to buy their product. If Obama had gotten what he wanted, it would have had a public option and probably heavy subsidies for lower income Americans to pay for that public option.
I can see that Republicans sponsored those precursor bills. I guess they were establishment republicans. They are the same kinds of people conservatives are fighting today for control of the party. An establishment Republican is just a little worse than a liberal democrat. At least we know that the liberal democrat is the enemy.

Thank you.
 
I can see that Republicans sponsored those precursor bills. I guess they were establishment republicans. They are the same kinds of people conservatives are fighting today for control of the party. An establishment Republican is just a little worse than a liberal democrat. At least we know that the liberal democrat is the enemy.

Thank you.

Apparently the republican is the enemy as well. Is there any way to disagree with someone with them being evil?
 
Apparently the republican is the enemy as well. Is there any way to disagree with someone with them being evil?
I did not say they were evil. I said that conservatives are fighting them for control of the Republican party. If we lose I suspect there will be a third party and the Republican party will end.
 
I did not say they were evil. I said that conservatives are fighting them for control of the Republican party. If we lose I suspect there will be a third party and the Republican party will end.

You did a little more than that:
An establishment Republican is just a little worse than a liberal democrat. At least we know that the liberal democrat is the enemy.

But, I won't belabor the point. When you cut out too many from your tent, you assure losing any popular vote. I wouldn't ask you to support anything you don't believe in, but I would argue that you need to covince people more than you need to categorize them. Just saying. :coffeepap
 
You did a little more than that:

But, I won't belabor the point. When you cut out too many from your tent, you assure losing any popular vote. I wouldn't ask you to support anything you don't believe in, but I would argue that you need to covince people more than you need to categorize them. Just saying. :coffeepap
Hehe. Yes. I see no disconnect between the two statements.

As the one term Marxist president Obama might say, "They can come along for the ride but they have to sit in back."

My point is that we need to have a real difference between the parties other than timing. Establishment Republicans want to arrive at the same place as the Democrats but they want to do it more efficiently, with less corruption and at a pace they think the public will accept. They path still leads to tyranny.
 
Hehe. Yes. I see no disconnect between the two statements.

As the one term Marxist president Obama might say, "They can come along for the ride but they have to sit in back."

My point is that we need to have a real difference between the parties other than timing. Establishment Republicans want to arrive at the same place as the Democrats but they want to do it more efficiently, with less corruption and at a pace they think the public will accept. They path still leads to tyranny.

As I've told you before, you lose all credibility when you go with the Marxist silliness. It cheapens the discourse and makes it less likely we'll be able to tell real threats from the hyperbole. But, it would be nice if the silliness could at least strive to be original. Do you know how old this tried tactic is?
 
As I've told you before, you lose all credibility when you go with the Marxist silliness. It cheapens the discourse and makes it less likely we'll be able to tell real threats from the hyperbole. But, it would be nice if the silliness could at least strive to be original. Do you know how old this tried tactic is?
Unfortunately his Marxist core beliefs color everything the one term president does. He has done and continues to do great harm to the nation. We can end the Marxist madness in a year. Elections can be wonderful things.

All governments have two tendencies. They accumulate power and they hire the mediocre. The end result is always tyranny.
 
Unfortunately his Marxist core beliefs color everything the one term president does. He has done and continues to do great harm to the nation. We can end the Marxist madness in a year. Elections can be wonderful things.

All governments have two tendencies. They accumulate power and they hire the mediocre. The end result is always tyranny.

Although I liked your post, I strongly disagree with you on part of it - Obama being a Marxist. He loves America as much as you and I do. He just doesn't get it, which is the same as so many other politicians, Democratic and Republican alike.
 
Unfortunately his Marxist core beliefs color everything the one term president does. He has done and continues to do great harm to the nation. We can end the Marxist madness in a year. Elections can be wonderful things.

All governments have two tendencies. They accumulate power and they hire the mediocre. The end result is always tyranny.

Add to what danarhea said that there is too little of your post that is objective and supportable for me to like evena little of it. Generalizations too often lead us to untruths more than they lead us to truth.
 
Although I liked your post, I strongly disagree with you on part of it - Obama being a Marxist. He loves America as much as you and I do. He just doesn't get it, which is the same as so many other politicians, Democratic and Republican alike.
First, thank you.
Second, how do you explain his efforts to create chaos at every turn, his demonizing of corporations, his rule by executive fiat and regulatory agency regulation? If that is love then I believe it is a cruel and sadistic love. The nation needs to divorce him.

On his Marxist core beliefs I am certain. His father was a communist and his mother a socialist. His mentor was a communist. He surrounded himself with radicals.
 
Back
Top Bottom