• 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!

SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758, 1205]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Well since you understand how supply and demand works, you should realize that Obama's healthcare plan would increase the supply to the medical industry. According to the law of supply and demand, this should reduce healthcare costs.

By the government forcing socialistic rules on for-profit, private companies - then the fundamentals of the supply-and-demand rule goes out the window...and overall costs for the consumer go through the roof.



Imo, in 5-10 years...the average amount Americans spend per capita on healthcare will be much higher then it is today.
And the satisfaction of Americans in the quality of their healthcare will either stay the same or decline from where it is today.

And America is already spending MILES more per capita then any other country in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

Obamacare will only make that number climb (imo).
 
Last edited:
So, CP, still think I'm overly critical?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

If you really have to ask that question, l;ikely, no answer of mine will ever be able to explain it to you adequately. He just TOOK control of 1/6th of the ENTIRE GDP of the United States of America. Add to that the public secotr, and now you could say that the government DIRECTLY controls fully HALF of GDP.


What happens when there are more public employees than private?

How did he take control? Private insurance of your choosing to pay for private doctors and private hospitals prescribing medications from private pharmaceutical companies.... There's not much government in this government takeover.
 
Re: Entire Healthcare Law Upheld

Some said it was a bad idea, others said it would be better than nothing. I'm not aware of ANY Democrats objecting to it on constitutional grounds.
See, and I think it's actually a bad thing that the constitutionality of it was not ever even a concern.

I guess it depends what you mean by "legitimately believing that." I believe that you've whipped yourself into such a frenzy that you believe it *now*. But no, I don't believe that you or anyone else now objecting to it had any such objections before it was included in the ACA (even though the individual mandate was hardly an unknown policy idea at the time). Why? Because such objections simply did not exist anywhere across the political spectrum until the Republican Party decided to abandon the individual mandate en masse in 2009. Some of them flip-flopped so fast that they started denouncing it as unconstitutional before they had even removed their own names from OTHER bills containing an individual mandate.

I'll be honest, I didn't know what the individual mandate was before Obamacare. Speaking of flip-flopping, wasn't Obama against the mandate before he was for it? I, myself, changed my mind on the mandate. My view on it actually softened, but I don't care what a good idea something is, I cannot support it if I believe it's unconstitutional, and before you tell me there's no reasonable grounds to believe that it is, 4 of the Supreme Court justices thought so too.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

If you really have to ask that question, l;ikely, no answer of mine will ever be able to explain it to you adequately. He just TOOK control of 1/6th of the ENTIRE GDP of the United States of America. Add to that the public secotr, and now you could say that the government DIRECTLY controls fully HALF of GDP.


What happens when there are more public employees than private?


Uhmm until Wall Mart came along the public sector was the largest employer.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

My family makes 30,400 per year gross. Thats 25,840 net. The following is a link for estimates on how much insurance will cost me per month...

Link

The highest price is 535.56 per month with a 1,000 deductable. IE I have to pay out of pocket 1,000 dollars before my insurance kicks in.

The lowest price is 254.02 per month with a 10,000 deductable. IE I have to pay out of pocket 10,000 dollars before my insurance kicks in.

If I got the 535.56 one I would end up paying 6426.72 per year. That means I am now at 19,413.28 net. Costs me 9,000 just for rent alone per year. Which means I'm down to 10,413.28. Then car insurance which costs me 1200 per year. Down to 9213.28. Food costs 3600 per year. Down to 5613.28. Then there's electricity. On average thats 1800 per year. Down to 3813.28. Then I need gas for me and my wife to get to work thats 1920 per year provided gas stays same as it is now. Down to 1893.28. Clothes for kids, about 1000 per year. Down to 893.28. Telephone which is needed due to job requirements, 960 per year. Down to -66.72. And then there is the deductable if I have to use the hospital for emergency care....-1,066.72.

So tell me...WTH is the use of having Insurance again?

Yeah I can take the lower payment ones but what is the use? Even if I got the lowest priced one at 2,940.24 per year I still have a 10,000 deductable which means I may end up paying more with the lower cost insurance than I would with the most expensive insurance. In BOTH cases I am in the hole. Thought Healthcare insurance was suppose to keep a person OUT of the hole?

So THANK YOU Obama & Co. for making me poorer than I already was. The only way that I am going to stay afloat is to participate in Government handouts. Like foodstamps and medicaid etc etc. Guess I won't be attempting to buy a house after all next year despite the money we've been trying to save. Useless waste of time it was. Hell...why not just say **** it and live on the government dole now? What the hell is the use of even trying if my own government is going to do this to me?

And this isn't even mentioning all the crap that the government can now mandate an individual buy from private companies now that SCOTUS was ****ed up enough to allow via this Obamacrap of a healthcare reform.....after all...its just a tax right?

**** Obama.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

One last time, before I say goodnight...

nerd-celebrate.gif
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

One last time, before I say goodnight...

nerd-celebrate.gif

Like I said, I don't fault you for wanting to gloat about this. If the decision had gone the other way, I'm sure I'd be just as insufferable. LOL
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

My family makes 30,400 per year gross. Thats 25,840 net. The following is a link for estimates on how much insurance will cost me per month...

Link

The highest price is 535.56 per month with a 1,000 deductable. IE I have to pay out of pocket 1,000 dollars before my insurance kicks in.

The lowest price is 254.02 per month with a 10,000 deductable. IE I have to pay out of pocket 10,000 dollars before my insurance kicks in.

If I got the 535.56 one I would end up paying 6426.72 per year. That means I am now at 19,413.28 net. Costs me 9,000 just for rent alone per year. Which means I'm down to 10,413.28. Then car insurance which costs me 1200 per year. Down to 9213.28. Food costs 3600 per year. Down to 5613.28. Then there's electricity. On average thats 1800 per year. Down to 3813.28. Then I need gas for me and my wife to get to work thats 1920 per year provided gas stays same as it is now. Down to 1893.28. Clothes for kids, about 1000 per year. Down to 893.28. Telephone which is needed due to job requirements, 960 per year. Down to -66.72. And then there is the deductable if I have to use the hospital for emergency care....-1,066.72.

So tell me...WTH is the use of having Insurance again?

Maybe there isn't. In that event, shouldn't we have a right to say "no, we're not buying that," and take our chances, even if that means opting out of ever receiving any medical attention even if we need it? At least we're living a free life in that scenario. Yes there are risks, but whatever, such is life, for all living things. Life can still be great even though you're not guaranteed survival. In fact you might enjoy your life once you embrace that you could die any day and that is the normal way of things...

Yeah I can take the lower payment ones but what is the use? Even if I got the lowest priced one at 2,940.24 per year I still have a 10,000 deductable which means I may end up paying more with the lower cost insurance than I would with the most expensive insurance. In BOTH cases I am in the hole. Thought Healthcare insurance was suppose to keep a person OUT of the hole?

Health insurance is supposed to manage risk. You don't want to go broke paying for medical, and I don't either. But if we go broke paying for the insurance that's supposed to keep us from going broke, then you're absolutely right, there is no point.

So THANK YOU Obama & Co. for making me poorer than I already was. The only way that I am going to stay afloat is to participate in Government handouts. Like foodstamps and medicaid etc etc. Guess I won't be attempting to buy a house after all next year despite the money we've been trying to save. Useless waste of time it was. Hell...why not just say **** it and live on the government dole now? What the hell is the use of even trying if my own government is going to do this to me?

What's the use? There is no use. This is their mission. Make us poor enough to NEED them.
 
Re: Entire Healthcare Law Upheld

See, and I think it's actually a bad thing that the constitutionality of it was not ever even a concern.

I'll be honest, I didn't know what the individual mandate was before Obamacare. Speaking of flip-flopping, wasn't Obama against the mandate before he was for it? I, myself, changed my mind on the mandate. My view on it actually softened, but I don't care what a good idea something is, I cannot support it if I believe it's unconstitutional, and before you tell me there's no reasonable grounds to believe that it is, 4 of the Supreme Court justices thought so too.

Supreme Court justices can be whipped into a frenzy by right-wing pundits just like anyone else can. As much as we like to imagine that they live in a bubble where they are only concerned with the Constitution, they hear the same commentary as anyone else. Scalia, for example, was willing to brazenly disregard his own past rulings to overturn a policy he dislikes politically (Gonzalez v Raich), legally contorting himself to get the desired result.

It is utterly inconceivable that if Mitt Romney had been elected president in 2008 and passed exactly the same bill (undoubtedly with much Republican support) that those 4 justices would have still ruled it unconstitutional...if anyone had even bothered litigating the case in the first place.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Uhmm until Wall Mart came along the public sector was the largest employer.

Not true. How is that possible. Explain to me how it's possible to have MORE people who are paid via taxes dollars than people who PAY those tax dollars to fund them.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

How did he take control? Private insurance of your choosing to pay for private doctors and private hospitals prescribing medications from private pharmaceutical companies.... There's not much government in this government takeover.

Private insurance of my choosing, lol? Define choice, then, big guy?



Of note, anyone take a glance at the Standard and Poor?


Insurance companies are doing GREAT now.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Great day for the country. The more people that we have insured the better off we all are.

Obamacare won't insure anyone. It'll merely require them to buy policies.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

The good news is, this doesn't affect me, yet. And it likely WON'T affect me for some time to come yet.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

My family makes 30,400 per year gross. Thats 25,840 net. The following is a link for estimates on how much insurance will cost me per month...

Link

The highest price is 535.56 per month with a 1,000 deductable. IE I have to pay out of pocket 1,000 dollars before my insurance kicks in.

The lowest price is 254.02 per month with a 10,000 deductable. IE I have to pay out of pocket 10,000 dollars before my insurance kicks in.

If I got the 535.56 one I would end up paying 6426.72 per year. That means I am now at 19,413.28 net. Costs me 9,000 just for rent alone per year. Which means I'm down to 10,413.28. Then car insurance which costs me 1200 per year. Down to 9213.28. Food costs 3600 per year. Down to 5613.28. Then there's electricity. On average thats 1800 per year. Down to 3813.28. Then I need gas for me and my wife to get to work thats 1920 per year provided gas stays same as it is now. Down to 1893.28. Clothes for kids, about 1000 per year. Down to 893.28. Telephone which is needed due to job requirements, 960 per year. Down to -66.72. And then there is the deductable if I have to use the hospital for emergency care....-1,066.72.

So tell me...WTH is the use of having Insurance again?

Yeah I can take the lower payment ones but what is the use? Even if I got the lowest priced one at 2,940.24 per year I still have a 10,000 deductable which means I may end up paying more with the lower cost insurance than I would with the most expensive insurance. In BOTH cases I am in the hole. Thought Healthcare insurance was suppose to keep a person OUT of the hole?

So THANK YOU Obama & Co. for making me poorer than I already was. The only way that I am going to stay afloat is to participate in Government handouts. Like foodstamps and medicaid etc etc. Guess I won't be attempting to buy a house after all next year despite the money we've been trying to save. Useless waste of time it was. Hell...why not just say **** it and live on the government dole now? What the hell is the use of even trying if my own government is going to do this to me?

And this isn't even mentioning all the crap that the government can now mandate an individual buy from private companies now that SCOTUS was ****ed up enough to allow via this Obamacrap of a healthcare reform.....after all...its just a tax right?

**** Obama.

If your family income is $26,000 and there are 4 people in your family, you will all be eligible for free Medicaid when the ACA takes effect (assuming your state participates in the expansion). It won't cost you a cent out of pocket.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Maybe there isn't. In that event, shouldn't we have a right to say "no, we're not buying that," and take our chances, even if that means opting out of ever receiving any medical attention even if we need it? At least we're living a free life in that scenario. Yes there are risks, but whatever, such is life, for all living things. Life can still be great even though you're not guaranteed survival. In fact you might enjoy your life once you embrace that you could die any day and that is the normal way of things...



Health insurance is supposed to manage risk. You don't want to go broke paying for medical, and I don't either. But if we go broke paying for the insurance that's supposed to keep us from going broke, then you're absolutely right, there is no point.



What's the use? There is no use. This is their mission. Make us poor enough to NEED them.

I hope to hell that all those that are gloating about this crap ruling takes a good long hard look at my post. Because thanks to them and their savior they are now more than likely going to be paying for my life style for the rest of my life. They have only themselves to blame.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

I agree with you that should be the case in a perfect world. But that ignores the state of American political culture. There can be no peace between us. The political culture makes that impossible. Your side won a great victory today. But American politcal culture now requires that the well be so poisoned that your victory becomes pyrrhic. Neither one of us made these rules. But we can't change the rules. This death spiral can't be prevented.

I wonder how many people felt the same way about Social Security and Medicare when they were passed by Democrats. Now they have become a ingrained part of our society, championed by both sides(up until recently at least). What makes you believe the HC bill is any different? How much do you want to bet that 10 or 15 years from now there is similar agreement that we are better off because of the reform?

As bitter and sad as you sound, take solace in the fact that there are many more that are relieved and content with the decision. We are not at war with each other but we won't let you stand in our way forever.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

One thing I've noticed about the debate over the ACA is that it isn't a usual political debate where we all look at the contents of the law and come to different conclusions as to how well it will work. Instead, what we're seeing is that most of the conservative opponents of the law actually don't even understand what it does. There is a HUGE information asymmetry between the supporters of the law (at least some of whom are quite well informed about it), and the opponents of the law (I've yet to see a single opponent in this thread who seems to understand the contents).
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

I hope to hell that all those that are gloating about this crap ruling takes a good long hard look at my post. Because thanks to them and their savior they are now more than likely going to be paying for my life style for the rest of my life. They have only themselves to blame.

If that is true, then we were likely to pay for it anyway. The changes are not great enough to be any other way.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

If your family income is $26,000 and there are 4 people in your family, you will all be eligible for free Medicaid when the ACA takes effect (assuming your state participates in the expansion). It won't cost you a cent out of pocket.

I don't make 26,000. I make 30,400.

And yeah...thats still assuming that my state participates. Will it? I have no friggen clue and sure as hell won't count on it.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

One thing I've noticed about the debate over the ACA is that it isn't a usual political debate where we all look at the contents of the law and come to different conclusions as to how well it will work. Instead, what we're seeing is that most of the conservative opponents of the law actually don't even understand what it does. There is a HUGE information asymmetry between the supporters of the law (at least some of whom are quite well informed about it), and the opponents of the law (I've yet to see a single person in this thread who understands it and is legitimately opposed).

Misinformation is a power weapon. It is ahrd to teach anyone anything they THINK they already know. BTW, that's true regardless of political persuassion.
 
Re: Entire Healthcare Law Upheld

Supreme Court justices can be whipped into a frenzy by right-wing pundits just like anyone else can. As much as we like to imagine that they live in a bubble where they are only concerned with the Constitution, they hear the same commentary as anyone else. Scalia, for example, was willing to brazenly disregard his own past rulings to overturn a policy he dislikes politically (Gonzalez v Raich), legally contorting himself to get the desired result.

It is utterly inconceivable that if Mitt Romney had been elected president in 2008 and passed exactly the same bill (undoubtedly with much Republican support) that those 4 justices would have still ruled it unconstitutional...if anyone had even bothered litigating the case in the first place.

Did you quote me on accident? This doesn't address anything I said. I haven't even bashed the individual mandate or Obama for flip-flopping (something I noticed you didn't even acknowledge). The Constitution matters to me and I think there should be limits on federal power. So sue me.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

:lol:
You are just chomping at the bit for an all-out race war, aren't you? I love the barely-concealed excitement as you say you wish this weren't true.

You're entitled to your opinion.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Not true. How is that possible. Explain to me how it's possible to have MORE people who are paid via taxes dollars than people who PAY those tax dollars to fund them.


With your sophistry aside before wall mart the government was the the single largest employer. Now Wall mart has more employees.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

One thing I've noticed about the debate over the ACA is that it isn't a usual political debate where we all look at the contents of the law and come to different conclusions as to how well it will work. Instead, what we're seeing is that most of the conservative opponents of the law actually don't even understand what it does. There is a HUGE information asymmetry between the supporters of the law (at least some of whom are quite well informed about it), and the opponents of the law (I've yet to see a single opponent in this thread who seems to understand the contents).

Yeah, that's it. Nobody could reasonably be concerned about the precedent this decision sets. It must be that we don't understand it. :roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom