• 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]

You " decided " wrong, so wrong.
Ever since it was passed Democrat Politicians and their supporters have been stuck in a endless loop of pro-ACA propaganda.
Well, there was a break in the propaganda right around the time Democrats wanted to get re-elected.
They just kept their mouths shut and refused to acknowledge that the ACA existed.
Allot of good it did. They still lost.

You have a good point. They should have been boasting about what a great success it's been.

Five years, five times Obamacare has cost less than predicted.
Rate of uninsured lowest in history. About 17 million Americans now have insurance because of Obamacare. Would be more if GOP hadn't blocked Medicaid expansion.
Most marketplace clients rate their care good or excellent.
Wait times are modest.
Premiums are not surging for the rest of us.

Here's a chart to really piss off Republicans:
lzi_gpd6puu6buc0blijhq.0-1.0.png


You're right. Missed opportunity.
Great decision though.
 
So anyone who doesn't agree with you is an activist justice? We have a govt. that is 18.2 trillion dollars in debt and you have no problem giving them more power and more money? Please name for me one, just one Federal Social program that ever cost what it was supposed to cost? Better yet name for me just one economic prediction Obama has made that is accurate? You still buy the leftwing rhetoric no matter how many lies you are told.

Medicare Part D actually came in costing less than initially projected as have projected ACA costs thus far. http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150126/NEWS/301269833
 
No more than you buy the right-wing rhetoric no matter how many lies you are told....


Now, do you suppose you could elevate you debate beyond 3rd grade playground tactics?

BTW... I am not sure what the debt has to do with this.... please do a better job of either staying on topic or tying in your sidebars.
 
No more than you buy the right-wing rhetoric no matter how many lies you are told....

Now, do you suppose you could elevate you debate beyond 3rd grade playground tactics?

Lies? What lies? You think Healthcare is a Federal Responsibility? You think that all states have the same cost of living? You think that you pay for the healthcare costs in my state? Please show me that Gruber wasn't talking about you.
 
I'd like to believe the Roberts/Kennedy Libertarian wing is telling both political parties to legislate--or they'll do it for them.
Decisions on VRA, CU 1.0/2.0, ACA 1.0/2.0, upcoming gay marriage, today's Housing in TX.

Roberts/Kennedy seem severely torn between state's rights and individual rights.
But beyond that, their decisions still seem to help the GOP electorally in ginning up their base .

I think we all know the answer to that....there isn't one.

At least, not one that could get backing to pass.
 
BTW... I am not sure what the debt has to do with this.... please do a better job of either staying on topic or tying in your sidebars.

How do you think Obamacare is going to paid for? Only a liberal believes govt. programs don't cost any money and won't add to the debt. Guess we just woke up and 18.2 trillion dollars appeared on the books, larger than the U.S. economy.
 
Do you understand the difference between a Federal Mandate and a state mandate? Republicans know that healthcare expenses are state issues not a Federal taxpayer issue. Obama is a big govt. liberal who believes in a massive central govt. and nanny state. Apparently so do you

I have never heard anything but a pathetically shallow argument drawing a distinction between Romneycare and Obamacare. OK, you have the floor, please explain to all of us the difference and why this is so important. Creating a national healthcare system, across state lines, likely requires a national mandate.

To have the healthcare system work, as well articulated by Roberts, we need to be certain all are covered (despite pre-existing conditions), it is affordable (tax credits) and all participate (mandate). If you want to do this on a national basis, and the appetite of Americans pre-2009, was that was the case, then you need to do these things across state lines...

That all said, most of this is moot, as this is here to stay... if people want to change it, they need to be working WITH the law as working against it is futile.
 
It's not even close to being Constitutional, lol...

No rational, informed, honest person would conclude that it is Constitutional. Only corrupt, dishonest, activist jurists would approve it. Exhibit A: The SCOTUS. All 9 need to be impeached.

How come you're not a member of SCOTUS?
 
You see, rhetoric for shock value works to ways. As Obama promised "you can keep you plan" 25 million people were losing their coverage, and potentially sent to their death by Obamacare.
See how that works?
Obama let people die too!

Too cute by half. 25 million "lost" their coverage because of Obamacare? It's a standard Fox "News" line, but it's fundamentally dishonest. "Lost" usually suggests permanence with no recourse. Is that what those people actually experienced? Or is it the case that what they "lost" was actually replaced by something better? Something that would actually cover them when they needed it?
Come on, can't you do better than tired Fox sound bites?
 
we have liabilities of over $100 Trillion

This is right-wing quackery. SS and Medicare are pay-as-you-go.

>>advertising next to those pictures of cats.

Worse than pictures of cats, imo.

>>if there is one thing I really want to brag on, it's American media.

Generates a lot of profit internationally.

>>We are absent on the world stage.

We have around 250K military personnel stationed overseas.

>>The Navy is down to the smallest that it's been since World War One

We have twenty aircraft carriers. Ya want more battleships, eh?

>>we're slashing the Air Force, Army, and Marines as well.

Are we? Any figures? We have more than six thousand combat aircraft, nine thousand tanks, and 4500 artillery pieces. Not enough?

>>You have to have will to be dominant, and we don't have the will.

We are dominant. Who do you want us to start a war with? Iran? Russia? North Korea?

>>ask yourself between Iran, Russia, and China, which one of these nations' leadership really worries that America might come kick their butt in an expensive, bloody war, if they push us too much?

What is this, a playground?

>>We are 10th on the list of debt to GDP.

Yeah, and we ran up a lot of debt and sacrificed a lot of GDP showing Saddam Hussein that he couldn't "push us too far."

>>When you compare our debt to how much we collect in revenue

That's called the deficit. It's been cut by two-thirds as a percentage of GDP under Obama.

Def_As_Pct_GDP_Chart.jpg

>>we're literally right behind Greece.

What is Greece's GDP relative to ours?

>>Then when you compare our unfunded liabilities to GDP.

When you do that, yer being foolish.
 
Good thing DEMs helped Bush straighten out that roll-out.
That cooperation ended with Obama's 1st election and Cantor's (Mr. False-Equivalency's) meeting that night .

Is that right? Democrats helped Bush roll out the program? Do you even know what Ted Kennedy proposed and how much?
 
Are you saying the conservative SCOTUS is legislating from the bench?

I'm a libertarian and a Constitutionalist... I don't have any regard for any of them.

I value liberty first and foremost - the Constitution is supposed to protect me from the government, and from other people who would seek to use the government to impose themselves and their views upon me, or anyone else for that matter.

Sadly, Amerikans have become overwhelmingly fascist/socialist, and see nothing wrong with use the government for anything they want, against anyone they want, anytime they want.

None of this surprises me, I've been expecting it for decades... it's just sad to see it happening. It's a sad time to be alive; it's sad to watch a once great, once free nation die like this.
 
How do you think Obamacare is going to paid for? Only a liberal believes govt. programs don't cost any money and won't add to the debt. Guess we just woke up and 18.2 trillion dollars appeared on the books, larger than the U.S. economy.

Who thinks it's not being paid for? It is. [hey, do you see all those tax hikes during King Reagan's presidency? Don't really fit the narrative, do they?]

Obamacare includes a big tax on rich fatcats, which is one of its best features!!! In fact, the CBO, even with the new GOP-mandated "dynamic scoring," has confirmed that it more than pays for itself, thus lowering the deficit.

Um, what was your point again...?
 
Last edited:
How come you're not a member of SCOTUS?

1. I'm not a lawyer
2. I'm not corrupt and dishonest
3. I believe in a strongly constrictive Constitution, i.e. I believe in limited government; not unlimited government
 
Did they help Bush fix his roll-out--yes or no?
Did DEMs obstruct Bush with Medicare part D--yes or NO, Conservative?
are you glad that Bush appointed Roberts--yes or no ?

Is that right? Democrats helped Bush roll out the program? Do you even know what Ted Kennedy proposed and how much?
 
I have never heard anything but a pathetically shallow argument drawing a distinction between Romneycare and Obamacare. OK, you have the floor, please explain to all of us the difference and why this is so important. Creating a national healthcare system, across state lines, likely requires a national mandate.

To have the healthcare system work, as well articulated by Roberts, we need to be certain all are covered (despite pre-existing conditions), it is affordable (tax credits) and all participate (mandate). If you want to do this on a national basis, and the appetite of Americans pre-2009, was that was the case, then you need to do these things across state lines...

That all said, most of this is moot, as this is here to stay... if people want to change it, they need to be working WITH the law as working against it is futile.

Very simple, Obamacare is a Federal Program, administered by the Federal Bureaucrats, Romneycare is a state program run closer to the people. Seems like a concept liberals don't understand. Romneycare is supported by the people of MA, Obamacare cost the Democrats Congress
 
Do you even know why it came in under cost projections? You look at Medicare Part D and ignore the incentive part of it for the consumer and that is what saved the money.

Yes, and there are incentives in the ACA as well. The reason why its coming under cost projections thus far is more people are going with bronze level plans on the exchanges.

My only point in bring it up was that you falsely implied no federal social program ever came in under initial projections in terms of costs.
 
1. I'm not a lawyer
2. I'm not corrupt and dishonest
3. I believe in a strongly constrictive Constitution, i.e. I believe in limited government; not unlimited government

Many people like today's GOPs did not sign the Constitution in 1787.
They were nullifiers and extreme state's righters and the Grandfathers of the civil war .
 
I have to admit, you are pretty good at trying to turn this around. It is not about me knowing more than a supreme court judge, it is about 3 of them having a take on this decision today that I agree with.

As I said, if we're honest our opinion about the correctness of the decision is highly correlated with how we feel about the law.

Because you made it up.

The largest block of text behind ACA is Title 2: The Role of Public Programs, at almost 100 sections covering everything from every part of Medicaid, CHIP, various government Prescription Drug Plans, MACPAC assessment policies, and other Child Health Services. The second largest block is Title 3: Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Healthcare, also at almost 100 sections covering everything from Medicare, to Healthcare and Hospital evaluations, to Fee Schedule and Coding changes, to Payment Accuracy, to Charge Master regulations, to Medicare Part D plan changes.

Sorry, but that it's a major provision is demonstrated by the fact that 1) the SC took this case, and 2) we all cared about the outcome. And we cared because a defeat of the subsidies for the federal exchange would have, without question, acted to gut the entire ACA in those states - no individual mandate, no employer mandate, no way to assist the poor and middle class with the cost of their premiums, etc.

Again, since you do not or will not understand, it is not the job of the Supreme Court to correct wording of legislation. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to make legislation at all, it is there job to evaluate the challenge made against the law as passed. In this case, they politically made a decision and made a conclusion that the document itself does not stipulate.

I don't think either of us is a constitutional law expert so I don't see the point of arguing the fine points of constitutional law. But if you'd like to read the different opinions about this case, here's the SCOTUS blog's rundown of various opinions. What you'll find is some of the best experts discussing why, obviously, Roberts was correct, and other experts discussing why, clearly, Scalia was.

I am not suggesting the law does not stand, I am suggesting they made an error. 3 justices pointed out the error in dissent. And you are wrong on the powers of the Supreme Court. Their clear job is to interpret the law vs. challenge, not edit and repair what Congress did not handle well. The law as written was clear, today 6 justices expanded the definition of "State" to include the Federal Government.

They didn't make an "error." They interpreted the law differently than the dissent. Ultimately the majority decided that had Congress intended to provide subsidies ONLY state exchanges, they would have made that clear, not hidden the "intent" so well that no one, literally, in Congress mentioned or debated this outcome, nor did the states know of the consequences of deferring to the Feds when they made their decision about setting up the exchange. As one commenter quotes Scalia in another context, "Congress does not hide elephants in mouse holes.”
 
Did they help Bush fix his roll-out--yes or no?
Did DEMs obstruct Bush with Medicare part D--yes or NO, Conservative?
are you glad that Bush appointed Roberts--yes or no ?

no, they didn't, Ted Kennedy proposed spending more than double what the final program actually cost.

Democrats and people like you have no concept of incentive and allowing people to decide what is best for them. Your one size fits all program like SS and Medicare are now trillions in debt but that doesn't bother you so you want another program just like them, Obamacare.
 
Yes, and there are incentives in the ACA as well. The reason why its coming under cost projections thus far is more people are going with bronze level plans on the exchanges.

My only point in bring it up was that you falsely implied no federal social program ever came in under initial projections in terms of costs.

And what incentives would those be? You have no idea what Obamacare is costing nor does the govt. You buy the rhetoric and ignore the reality. Why do you keep buying Obama lies?
 
Lies? What lies? You think Healthcare is a Federal Responsibility? You think that all states have the same cost of living? You think that you pay for the healthcare costs in my state? Please show me that Gruber wasn't talking about you.

What Gruber said is irrelevant, the people don't make laws, Congress does. I think you need to go back and take a civics class. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom