• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obama won the battle, but now likely not the war

You seems generally confused that some of us support things that don't help us personally.
I would suppose some on the rw do support "things" not in their own self interest, I can't help it if they do stupid acts like that. But that was my point.....and I specifically listed the "things" that the ACA DOES do and how those "things" ARE in the rw's self interest.

But again, you can't bring yourself to discuss those SPECIFIC "things", only your vague morality.

Anytime you tire of this semantic ring around the rosey and decide to address specifics, let me know....mkay?
 
Last edited:
Seems like the reasonable response would be: when you decide to read it.

If you have insurance, this won't effect you....other than lowering your premium. This represents 94% of the US population. The other 6% will buy in, have some subsidies or pay the penalty.

It still amazes me how much noise is being made by those not affected by this in a negative manner, while they defend those who are not in the pool. Once again, cons are working against their own self interests.

Actually, a more reasonable response would be that the law has been fully explained by those who enacted it. Unfortunately, it hasn't been. Frankly, I suspect those who enacted it still don't fully understand the effects of the law to this day...especially since a large portion of the rules required by the law haven't even been written yet.

Your summation is not written in the law. It is merely your opinion of the affects of the law. I contend that the validity of your opinion is dubious, at best.

As far as being affected in a negative manner...what we DO know about Obamacare is that there are a myriad of negative effects ranging from being required to buy insurance or face a..."tax", to a whole host of other taxes, fees and penalties for individuals and businesses who only wish to make their own personal decisions.

Finally, you shouldn't be amazed that people will make noise when they don't agree with a law or policy...for whatever reason. That is one of our fundamental rights as Americans.
 
I would suppose some on the rw do support "things" not in their own self interest, I can't help it if they do stupid acts like that. But that was my point.....and I specifically listed the "things" that the ACA DOES do and how those "things" ARE in the rw's self interest.

But again, you can't bring yourself to discuss those SPECIFIC "things", only your vague morality.

Anytime you tire of this semantic ring around the rosey and decide to address specifics, let me know....mkay?

way to move that goal post.

a refresher is necessary

the dumb thing I responded to said:
Once again, cons are working against their own self interests.

and again, I don't base support of bills based on my own self interest.
 
Debra, I was all set to respond to the highlighted text...until I saw Born Free make almost the same response I would have made. But I would ask you...after all these years, WHEN WILL we find out the truth about Obamacare? WHEN WILL we no longer be afraid of it?






I have never been afraid if it! But I will refresh your memory...GOP lies...death panels,take away your doctor, higher cost, standing in lines for surgery and other health care , will let seniors die cause they are worth giving certain care, government run health care and or hospitals ........truths..your health care stays the same if you already have it, only the people who have no health care have to opt in or pay the fine or as scotus says tax , if you cannot afford healthcare (make under 15,000a year) you can opt in to Medicare. Your children stay on your policy till 26 ,you cannot be refused because of pre condition insurance companies must spend up to 80 percent of cost on health insurance or you get a refund ...etc etc basically all the free loaders have to pay in now and it brings the cost down. If you take the time to find out about it you will find its not the end of the world as its been described by GOP.
 
IMO the decision helps Obama. Health care reform is the signature achievement of his presidency and there's no way it wouldn't have hurt him if it had been struck down. It hurts Romney because he can't even address the subject without sounding like a hypocritical liar.

OTOH, I think it's going to help Republicans in House and Senate races by firing up the base.
 
IMO the decision helps Obama. Health care reform is the signature achievement of his presidency and there's no way it wouldn't have hurt him if it had been struck down. It hurts Romney because he can't even address the subject without sounding like a hypocritical liar.

OTOH, I think it's going to help Republicans in House and Senate races by firing up the base.

I think that's right.

The next Supreme Court vacancy is going to see a blood bath the magnitude of which is hard to imagine.
 
I think that's right.

The next Supreme Court vacancy is going to see a blood bath the magnitude of which is hard to imagine.

Worse than Ted Kennedy vs. Bork? Worse than the all out attack on Clarence Thomas? The Senate republicans have long invoked the principle of deference to the president. As long as a nominee was professionally qualified and was free of obvious character flaws and had views that fall within a very wide mainstream of legal thought they would be affirmed. This sort of vote factored into Lugar's recent primary defeat. There was not much opposition to Sotomayor or Kagan.
The republican's biggest problem is their presidents keep making poor choices. The reason this often happens is because the left stands up for their beliefs and fights back. Too often the republicans don't have the stomach for the fight and select "mild" conservatives or those they assume are conservative and don't have a paper trail strong enough to antanonize the left. Poor selection and not being willing to stand strong for their principles. I don't think it's going to change.
 
Worse than Ted Kennedy vs. Bork? Worse than the all out attack on Clarence Thomas? The Senate republicans have long invoked the principle of deference to the president. As long as a nominee was professionally qualified and was free of obvious character flaws and had views that fall within a very wide mainstream of legal thought they would be affirmed. This sort of vote factored into Lugar's recent primary defeat. There was not much opposition to Sotomayor or Kagan.
The republican's biggest problem is their presidents keep making poor choices. The reason this often happens is because the left stands up for their beliefs and fights back. Too often the republicans don't have the stomach for the fight and select "mild" conservatives or those they assume are conservative and don't have a paper trail strong enough to antanonize the left. Poor selection and not being willing to stand strong for their principles. I don't think it's going to change.

Your points are well taken, but I don't agree with you as far as the future is concerned.

NY Senator Charles Schumer set the new standard for the Senate confirmation process for the federal judiciary. He said that ideology is now a perfectly acceptable basis for voting on nominees to the federal bench. I accept this.

It's clear that all of President Obama's Supreme Court nominees will be radical ideologues. If they are confirmed our mortal enemies will have lifetime appointments in which to destroy Classical Liberalism. What is the alternative? Filibuster and allow the Supreme Court vacancies to remain open.

There will be a political price to be paid for this. Take the pain...the Democrats aren't going to get sixty seats in the Senate again during our lifetimes.
 
Your points are well taken, but I don't agree with you as far as the future is concerned.

NY Senator Charles Schumer set the new standard for the Senate confirmation process for the federal judiciary. He said that ideology is now a perfectly acceptable basis for voting on nominees to the federal bench. I accept this.

It's clear that all of President Obama's Supreme Court nominees will be radical ideologues. If they are confirmed our mortal enemies will have lifetime appointments in which to destroy Classical Liberalism. What is the alternative? Filibuster and allow the Supreme Court vacancies to remain open.

There will be a political price to be paid for this. Take the pain...the Democrats aren't going to get sixty seats in the Senate again during our lifetimes.

I hope you are correct about the future. Schumer only confirmed the democrats long held position. Ideology has always been their primary concern. The Lindsay Grahams, Murkowski, Scott Brown types will always vote to cover their butts first.
 
I think that's right.

The next Supreme Court vacancy is going to see a blood bath the magnitude of which is hard to imagine.

That depends on who's being replaced and who's doing the replacing. The luckiest thing for the right is that Rhenquist died when he did and not during Obama's term. Could you imagine the battle that would have gone on if that happened last year?
 
I have never been afraid if it! But I will refresh your memory...GOP lies...death panels,take away your doctor, higher cost, standing in lines for surgery and other health care , will let seniors die cause they are worth giving certain care, government run health care and or hospitals ........truths..your health care stays the same if you already have it, only the people who have no health care have to opt in or pay the fine or as scotus says tax , if you cannot afford healthcare (make under 15,000a year) you can opt in to Medicare. Your children stay on your policy till 26 ,you cannot be refused because of pre condition insurance companies must spend up to 80 percent of cost on health insurance or you get a refund ...etc etc basically all the free loaders have to pay in now and it brings the cost down. If you take the time to find out about it you will find its not the end of the world as its been described by GOP.

Well, you certainly paint a rosy picture of the effects of Obamacare. Unfortunately, you leave out the truly devastating portions...particularly the fees and taxes.

1. Hospital Insurance Tax. Beginning in 2013, Obamacare increases the Hospital Insurance (HI) portion of the payroll tax from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent for families earning more than $250,000 a year and for single filers earning more than $200,000 annually. The increased HI tax is also applied to investment income for the first time. The 3.8 percent surtax on investment income is the most economically damaging tax in Obamacare. And these tax increases won’t remain just on families making more than $250,000 a year for long. As the JEC explains, this tax is not indexed to inflation: “This means that in just 10 years from now, the so-called ‘high-income’ thresholds will have effectively ratcheted down to $152,000 and $190,000 in today’s dollars.” This tax increase amounts to $210 billion between 2013 and 2019.

2. Mandate Penalties. In 2014, Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates go into effect, forcing individuals to purchase coverage and employers to offer coverage to their workers. The penalties paid in association with these mandates are an estimated $65 billion between 2014 and 2019.

3. Health Insurance Provider Fee. Starting in 2014, Obamacare imposes an annual fee on health insurance providers based on each company’s share of the total market. This totals a $60 billion tax hike between 2014 and 2019.

4. “Cadillac” Tax. In 2018, Obamacare puts a new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans, meaning plans that cost more than $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for families. However, this tax is not indexed to medical inflation, causing it to eventually tax “Honda” plans at this rate as well. The JEC points out that “[t]he bulk of revenues from the ‘Cadillac’ tax would not be paid by platinum health insurance plans, but rather by employees who are forced to exchange tax-free health insurance benefits for taxable wages after employers reduce or eliminate health insurance.” This tax amounts to $32 billion in higher taxes in the first two years of its implementation.

5. Prescription Drug Fees. Since 2011, Obamacare has put an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs based on each individual company’s share of the total market. Between 2011 and 2019, this will amount to a $27 billion tax increase.

6. Ethanol Tax. In 2010, Obamacare excluded ethanol from the existing cellulosic biofuel producer tax credit. This will hike taxes $24 billion from 2010–2019.

7. Medical Device Tax. Beginning in 2013, Obamacare imposes a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers. This will raise taxes on patients needing medical devices, who will ultimately pay the tax through higher prices, by $20 billion from 2013 to 2019.

8. Business Regulation Costs. Beginning in 2012, Obamacare raises corporate taxes through stricter enforcement, because businesses will be required to report more information on their business activities. This will raise taxes $17 billion from 2012 to 2019.

9. Reducing Medical Deductions. In 2013, Obamacare raises the floor on itemized medical deductions from 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income to 10 percent, meaning Americans must spend 2.5 percent more of their income before they get a medical deduction, costing $15 billion from 2013 to 2019.

10. FSA Limits. Starting in 2014, Obamacare limits the amount of pre-tax dollars that taxpayers can deposit in flexible savings accounts (FSAs) to $2,500 a year. This results in an extra $13 billion in taxes from 2014 to 2019.

These are only 10 of Obamacare’s 18 tax increases. The economic damage from these tax hikes is one of many reasons Congress needs to repeal Obamacare and start from scratch to properly reform the health care system.
The Top 10 Most Expensive Obamacare Taxes and Fees


An ethanol tax???

Now, I'm sure you think it's perfectly reasonable to implement this hit on our economy...especially in these troubled times...if it gets more people covered by health insurance, but I disagree and I am very afraid of the effects of this stuff.
 
IMO, the decision hurts Romney more than it does Obama. One of the great hammers that Romney had in the campaign would have been the Constitutionality of Obamacare. Now that it's been decided, that's out of the arsenal.

All he's got then is a tax. If he wants to hammer that, it means that he raised taxes when he was Governor. That's not a winning storyline for him. Basically all he had on Obamacare was that it was OK for states, but Unconstitutional for the Feds. Now he'd have to go after on policy, which considering that the centerpiece was stolen from Romneycare, doesn't help Mitt either.

Mitt should run from this as fast as he can. This was the worst possible outcome for him.
 
That depends on who's being replaced and who's doing the replacing. The luckiest thing for the right is that Rhenquist died when he did and not during Obama's term. Could you imagine the battle that would have gone on if that happened last year?

I hear you, but if a conservative Justice dies while President Obama is in office there will be a figurative battle like the Free Soil battles of the 19th century.
 
IMO, the decision hurts Romney more than it does Obama. One of the great hammers that Romney had in the campaign would have been the Constitutionality of Obamacare. Now that it's been decided, that's out of the arsenal.

All he's got then is a tax. If he wants to hammer that, it means that he raised taxes when he was Governor. That's not a winning storyline for him. Basically all he had on Obamacare was that it was OK for states, but Unconstitutional for the Feds. Now he'd have to go after on policy, which considering that the centerpiece was stolen from Romneycare, doesn't help Mitt either.

Mitt should run from this as fast as he can. This was the worst possible outcome for him.

Conservatives won't allow Mitt to run from this. Conservatives aren't going away. Just as the Palestinians refuse to go away and have been radicalized by rejectionism there is a possiblility this will happen here in terms of mutually exclusive opinions.
 
IMO, the decision hurts Romney more than it does Obama. One of the great hammers that Romney had in the campaign would have been the Constitutionality of Obamacare. Now that it's been decided, that's out of the arsenal.

All he's got then is a tax. If he wants to hammer that, it means that he raised taxes when he was Governor. That's not a winning storyline for him. Basically all he had on Obamacare was that it was OK for states, but Unconstitutional for the Feds. Now he'd have to go after on policy, which considering that the centerpiece was stolen from Romneycare, doesn't help Mitt either.

Mitt should run from this as fast as he can. This was the worst possible outcome for him.

The only point your missing is that Obama denied to the American people that it was a tax and then his lawyers argued before the Supreme Court that it was constitutional because it is a tax. Hammer home the lie and deception. We all remember the kickbacks used to pass this. Most people are well aware that you can't assume that something that works for a small state like Massachusetts will work for over 300 million people.
 
The only point your missing is that Obama denied to the American people that it was a tax and then his lawyers argued before the Supreme Court that it was constitutional because it is a tax. Hammer home the lie and deception. We all remember the kickbacks used to pass this. Most people are well aware that you can't assume that something that works for a small state like Massachusetts will work for over 300 million people.

The lie poisons the well of the political culture even further. How can any one work with another when one doesn't believe that other ever acts in good faith?
 
When it helps you or someone you care for. :peace
Debra, I was all set to respond to the highlighted text...until I saw Born Free make almost the same response I would have made. But I would ask you...after all these years, WHEN WILL we find out the truth about Obamacare? WHEN WILL we no longer be afraid of it?
 

Then you can continue being bitter & uninformed. It's here to stay. :peace

I am neither bitter nor uninformed. And I wouldn't be placing any bets on whether it's here to stay if I were you.
 
I do not know if this makes it harder for Obama to win. I think it helps Romney, but for those that wanted some type of universal healthcare, they might feel the need to go out and vote more now than before in order to keep Obamacare around.

I think the SC ruling will help the Republicans more than the Democrats this November.

Those who do not support the health care Death Panels will vote for Republicans in the Congressional races this year.
 
IMO the decision helps Obama. Health care reform is the signature achievement of his presidency and there's no way it wouldn't have hurt him if it had been struck down. It hurts Romney because he can't even address the subject without sounding like a hypocritical liar.

OTOH, I think it's going to help Republicans in House and Senate races by firing up the base.

It does nothing in that regard. Obamacare is against popular opinion and the SCOTUS does not change that. Obamacare raises the national debt and the word tax goes directly against what Obama promised. This is a big negative for Obama. It's a short win, but will not win the war. Romney is for states rights, not big government telling the nation what to do. And most of all, Obamacare adds cost not cutting cost, which at this point is a huge negative added to all the other entitlements that are killing this nation with increasing our national debt.
 
the biggest lie put out was Obama claiming to the public the individual mandate was not a tax, and then out of the other side of his face, arguing to SCOTUS it is a tax.

So what? Nothing in its character is any different today than when it was passed. If you didn't see that then, then you shouldn't complain about it now. Nothing has changed. To feign outrage now that it is a tax is nothing short of disingenuous.
 

Then you can continue being bitter & uninformed. It's here to stay. :peace

If Obama is reelected, and he most likely will be, then this piece of legislation will be as institutionalized in American culture as social security and Medicare. The irony is that if Romney spends to much time campaigning on this issue, given he delivered the healthcare mandate to America, he will detract from his main message and shine the spotlight boldly on his hypocrisy (he will lose)....

This battle is lost, Cons. Its time to get a life and move on lest you wish to also lose the War of 2012.

BTW... does anyone want to laugh that the notion that the Regressives are upset about a Republican appointed SCOTUS justice being key in striking down a Republican challenge to a Republican idea (the Mandate was invented by the Heritage Foundation) that was implemented in Massachusetts by the current Republican nominee for POTUS? Sounds like the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight.
 
Last edited:
If Obama is reelected, and he most likely will be, then this piece of legislation will be as institutionalized in American culture as social security and Medicare. The irony is that if Romney spends to much time campaigning on this issue, given he delivered the healthcare mandate to America, he will detract from his main message and shine the spotlight boldly on his hypocrisy (he will lose)....

This battle is lost, Cons. Its time to get a life and move on lest you wish to also lose the War of 2012.

BTW... does anyone want to laugh that the notion that the Regressives are upset about a Republican appointed SCOTUS justice being key in striking down a Republican challenge to a Republican idea (the Mandate was invented by the Heritage Foundation) that was implemented in Massachusetts by the current Republican nominee for POTUS? Sounds like the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight.

Your comments are eerily reminiscient of the Democratic rhetoric leading up to the 2010 election. Remember how that turned out?
 
Back
Top Bottom