• 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 says Supreme Court should never have taken up health law case

warning that a ruling against subsidies would be a "twisted interpretation" of the law.

The only thing twisted in this story is him.

It really is sad what Obama supporters have made this nation and their total ignorance as to the role of the Federal Govt. and where the money comes from for that govt. It is easy for them to ask for subsidies because they just don't get it, subsidies come from tax revenue paid for by actual taxpayers.

One of the worst things to ever happen in this country was LBJ creating the unified budget where all tax revenue from all tax sources goes into one pot regardless of what the tax was supposed to fund. That makes it easy for politicians to spend money and then when the item the taxes were to fund runs out of money simply say the program is broke and we need to tax the taxpayers more. Obama supporters have no problem taking from someone else and Obama has no problem promoting wealth redistribution.
 
It really is sad what Obama supporters have made this nation and their total ignorance as to the role of the Federal Govt. and where the money comes from for that govt. It is easy for them to ask for subsidies because they just don't get it, subsidies come from tax revenue paid for by actual taxpayers.

One of the worst things to ever happen in this country was LBJ creating the unified budget where all tax revenue from all tax sources goes into one pot regardless of what the tax was supposed to fund. That makes it easy for politicians to spend money and then when the item the taxes were to fund runs out of money simply say the program is broke and we need to tax the taxpayers more. Obama supporters have no problem taking from someone else and Obama has no problem promoting wealth redistribution.

So you're opposed to all forms of taxation??
 
It really is sad what Obama supporters have made this nation and their total ignorance as to the role of the Federal Govt. and where the money comes from for that govt. It is easy for them to ask for subsidies because they just don't get it, subsidies come from tax revenue paid for by actual taxpayers.

Do you wish to argue that subsidies in this case (i.e. assistance for individuals to purchase health insurance which, in turn, help spread the risks and lower the costs for every other individual in that same market place) are bad?
 
So you're opposed to all forms of taxation??

No, but I am for taxation going to the programs it was created to fund, i.e. excise taxes on gasoline to fund highways and bridges, not the general fund.
 
Obama says Supreme Court should never have taken up health law case, in blunt challenge | Fox News

This guy thinks he is a King. Why would anyone take this guy serious on anything and can you imagine taking Constitutional Law from this radical incompetent?

I'll bet a dollar to a donut the administration wins this case.

all they need to show is that congress intended the law to operate in the way they say it does, despite any problems with the actual text of the bill...... and it'll be a sealed deal.
legislative intent is always in play.... always.

as for his opinion that is should have never been taken up by the courts... well, his opinion means exactly nothing on that point... no sense in even bothering to entertain it.
 
Do you wish to argue that subsidies in this case (i.e. assistance for individuals to purchase health insurance which, in turn, help spread the risks and lower the costs for every other individual in that same market place) are bad?

I don't believe it is the other taxpayers' responsibility to pay for someone else's personal responsibility issue. If the states want to do it and get the support from their citizens then so be it, but NOT a national program funded by FIT dollars.
 
warning that a ruling against subsidies would be a "twisted interpretation" of the law.

The only thing twisted in this story is him.

it's seem like a rather weird "attack " for him to say that.. .especially in light of the "twisted interpretations" that were used to enact Obamacare in the first place.
 
It really is sad what Obama supporters have made this nation and their total ignorance as to the role of the Federal Govt. and where the money comes from for that govt. It is easy for them to ask for subsidies because they just don't get it, subsidies come from tax revenue paid for by actual taxpayers.

One of the worst things to ever happen in this country was LBJ creating the unified budget where all tax revenue from all tax sources goes into one pot regardless of what the tax was supposed to fund. That makes it easy for politicians to spend money and then when the item the taxes were to fund runs out of money simply say the program is broke and we need to tax the taxpayers more. Obama supporters have no problem taking from someone else and Obama has no problem promoting wealth redistribution.

To the bolded, all taxes meet that definition. I'm certain what really bothers you is what the taken money is used for. Feeding children at school, HELL NO, welfare for Israel, how much do you want. Food stamps for the impoverished, HELL NO, money for the Pentagon, how much do you need. R&D for aids, HELL NO, money to militarize our police forces, how much do you need. Both parties favor big government, big spending, they only differ in where and how.
 
The more technical critique should have been directed towards the three judge panel for the DC Court of Appeals. At the same time that this decision was made in 2-1 verdict against the ACA, the 4th Circuit ruled 3-0 in favor of the ACA. If the conflict did not exist, then the Supreme Court would not have taken up the issue.

The implications of a negative ruling in this case are tremendous and should not be understated. The insurance markets in those states which do not run their own health insurance market places (thirty six states) will have hundreds of thousands of individuals instantly drop out of the insurance market. The remaining policies will almost certainly become non-profitable for the insurance companies. The new pricing will reflect the fact that potentially millions of individuals will no longer be able to take part in the market place and this will increase the risk and thus, the price.

What the finding will not do, despite the misunderstandings (and desires) of some conservatives, is destroy the Affordable Care Act. Subsidies for those individuals who are unable to afford the full cost of health insurance is one component (albeit important) of the ACA. The law, including the mandate that insurance companies not reject individuals based on pre-existing conditions will still exist. The tax penalty for those individuals who can afford health insurance, but choose not to purchase a qualifying plan, will still exist. The State and Federally run marketplaces will still exist.
 
To the bolded, all taxes meet that definition. I'm certain what really bothers you is what the taken money is used for. Feeding children at school, HELL NO, welfare for Israel, how much do you want. Food stamps for the impoverished, HELL NO, money for the Pentagon, how much do you need. R&D for aids, HELL NO, money to militarize our police forces, how much do you need. Both parties favor big government, big spending, they only differ in where and how.

What really bothers me is people who don't understand what taxes they pay and where the money is supposed to go. Schools aren't funded by Federal Tax dollars, but rather state and local dollars. Police, schools, and fire fighters-state and local taxes. You continue to prove me point.
 
I don't believe it is the other taxpayers' responsibility to pay for someone else's personal responsibility issue. If the states want to do it and get the support from their citizens then so be it, but NOT a national program funded by FIT dollars.

Everyone participates in the health market because the health market does not respond to ordinary market forces. Everyone has a need for medical services at some point in their life and the overwhelming majority of individuals can not afford the actual cost associated with most medical care. It requires an odd interpretation for someone to try and claim that "cancer" or "heart disease" is the sole responsibility of the individual when the society also faces tremendous costs when that individual can not afford the medical care necessary to deal with their issue.
 
The more technical critique should have been directed towards the three judge panel for the DC Court of Appeals. At the same time that this decision was made in 2-1 verdict against the ACA, the 4th Circuit ruled 3-0 in favor of the ACA. If the conflict did not exist, then the Supreme Court would not have taken up the issue.

The implications of a negative ruling in this case are tremendous and should not be understated. The insurance markets in those states which do not run their own health insurance market places (thirty six states) will have hundreds of thousands of individuals instantly drop out of the insurance market. The remaining policies will almost certainly become non-profitable for the insurance companies. The new pricing will reflect the fact that potentially millions of individuals will no longer be able to take part in the market place and this will increase the risk and thus, the price.

What the finding will not do, despite the misunderstandings (and desires) of some conservatives, is destroy the Affordable Care Act. Subsidies for those individuals who are unable to afford the full cost of health insurance is one component (albeit important) of the ACA. The law, including the mandate that insurance companies not reject individuals based on pre-existing conditions will still exist. The tax penalty for those individuals who can afford health insurance, but choose not to purchase a qualifying plan, will still exist. The State and Federally run marketplaces will still exist.

Don't get it, do you, Mr. T. it isn't the federal taxpayer's responsibility to pay for your health insurance since your costs are state and local responsibility.
 
Everyone participates in the health market because the health market does not respond to ordinary market forces. Everyone has a need for medical services at some point in their life and the overwhelming majority of individuals can not afford the actual cost associated with most medical care. It requires an odd interpretation for someone to try and claim that "cancer" or "heart disease" is the sole responsibility of the individual when the society also faces tremendous costs when that individual can not afford the medical care necessary to deal with their issue.

That is a state and local responsibility not a federal taxpayers. Please learn what your state and local government's responsibility is as well as the purpose of the Federal Govt.
 
What really bothers me is people who don't understand what taxes they pay and where the money is supposed to go. Schools aren't funded by Federal Tax dollars, but rather state and local dollars. Police, schools, and fire fighters-state and local taxes. You continue to prove me point.

Good god, stop looking stupid.


The Pentagon gave nearly half a billion dollars of military gear to local law enforcement last year.
The Pentagon gave nearly half a billion dollars of military gear to local law enforcement last year - The Washington Post

National School Lunch Program (NSLP) | Food and Nutrition Service

The National School Lunch Program is a federally assisted meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day. The program was established under the National School Lunch Act, signed by President Harry Truman in 1946.

And I didn't speak to firefighters.
 
That is a state and local responsibility not a federal taxpayers. Please learn what your state and local government's responsibility is as well as the purpose of the Federal Govt.

So is the repair to the infrastructure, replacement of services, and improvement to the health and well-being of it's citizens after a natural disaster, but that did not stop Texas from requesting federal assistance after the recent floods.
 
Good god, stop looking stupid.


The Pentagon gave nearly half a billion dollars of military gear to local law enforcement last year.
The Pentagon gave nearly half a billion dollars of military gear to local law enforcement last year - The Washington Post

National School Lunch Program (NSLP) | Food and Nutrition Service

The National School Lunch Program is a federally assisted meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day. The program was established under the National School Lunch Act, signed by President Harry Truman in 1946.

Where is that in the Constitution as a requirement for the Defense Dept. to do that? Looks like cooperation to me, not a mandate and you are the one looking stupid. Federal Assistance is one thing total responsibility is another. You just don't understand your taxes at all.
 
So is the repair to the infrastructure, replacement of services, and improvement to the health and well-being of it's citizens after a natural disaster, but that did not stop Texas from requesting federal assistance after the recent floods.

A natural disaster is different from normal operations and responsibility of the Federal Govt. I figured liberals were smarter than this but am always disappointed.
 
Everyone participates in the health market because the health market does not respond to ordinary market forces. Everyone has a need for medical services at some point in their life and the overwhelming majority of individuals can not afford the actual cost associated with most medical care. It requires an odd interpretation for someone to try and claim that "cancer" or "heart disease" is the sole responsibility of the individual when the society also faces tremendous costs when that individual can not afford the medical care necessary to deal with their issue.

Everyone participates in living and because the living does not respond to ordinary market forces. Everyone has a need to live at some point in their life and the overwhelming majority of individuals can not afford the actual cost associated with most living. It requires an odd interpretation for someone to try and claim that "being alive" or "a beating heart" is the sole responsibility of the individual when the society also faces tremendous costs when that individual can not afford to live and is necessary to deal with their issue.

Clearly your logic also applies to food, water, living quarters, entertainment, transportation, a wage, retirement, and burial.
 
Where is that in the Constitution as a requirement for the Defense Dept. to do that? Looks like cooperation to me, not a mandate and you are the one looking stupid. Federal Assistance is one thing total responsibility is another. You just don't understand your taxes at all.

Any federal assistance is paid for by tax dollars, that you fail to understand that doesn't surprise me, nor does the fact you ignored the larger point that you have no problem with "redistribution of the wealth" so long as you approve of its destination. Typical hypocrite.
 
Back
Top Bottom