• 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]


The exchanges are working ? You mean the one's that haven't gone absolutely bankrupt yet ?

Or the Zombie exchanges, that are bankrupt but are kept alive because the Governor is a ideological lunatic ? ( Jerry Brown )

If ObamaCare's working, why didn't the Democrats run on it in 2014 ?

It would seem if it was working they wouldn't have avoided the issue like the plague. But they did of-course, and they still lost.
 
OK, but you're not in charge, or I don't think you are.

So, go ahead, don't file or pay your taxes, etc. You should be fine...

All I said was states should not obey the courts ruling on Obamacare.
 
All I said was states should not obey the courts ruling on Obamacare.

Sure, also reasonable. It's like a laundry list. The states can pick laws they want to follow and ignore the others. Sounds great, and shouldn't lead to any problems at all when laws are optional.
 
His description of "public insurance program" is what the exchanges are. Stop trying to pull a Roberts and change the meaning of words.

By 2019, the only options everyone will have will be high deductible, HSA-eligible plans available via the exchange.

He said " healthcare plan through the "federal government" ( public option).
That was the only way to lower costs, by providing competion to private insurance companies.

When the public option went so did the completion and the savings.
 
Public option ?

You mean single payer ? I didn't realize there were premiums paid in Countries that had Nationalized healthcare.

And no way would a Family of four save 2500 dollars if we had single payer. Its not free Healthcare.

...

No, not single payer.

A public option to provide competition and help bring costs down.



The public health insurance option, also known as the public insurance option or the public option, was a proposal to create a government-run health insurance agency which would compete with other health insurance companies within the United States. The public option is not the same as publicly funded health care,
but was proposed as an alternative health insurance plan offered by the government. The proposal was initially part of the debates surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but was not passed in the final reconciled bill.


The public option was featured in three bills considered by the United States House of Representatives in 2009:
the proposed Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), which was passed by the House in 2009, its predecessor, the proposed America's Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200), and a third bill, the Public Option Act, also referred to as the "Medicare You Can Buy Into Act", (H.R. 4789). ...

President Barack Obama promoted the idea of the public option while running for election in 2008.[3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health_insurance_option
 
Last edited:
US is not a Democracy. It's a Constitutional Republic. Yes, HUGE difference if you paid attention in Government class in school.

I didn't take "Government class." I was busy studying political science, public administration, and American history in graduate school.

The reactionary line yer pushing would come as quite a surprise to a great many Americans, including the ones who fought and died to defend our democracy. The funny thing is the way you clowns you "Democrat" as an adjective. You don't want to refer to yer political opponents as "Democratic" because it makes people think of "democratic" — something almost universally regarded as good in the US.

There's no way this can be decided on facts, so I'll just encourage you to keep on saying that this country is not a democracy. That should help to isolate you politically, as a right-wing, anti-American nut.

>>ACA rate hikes in 2016.

In the handful of states where data is available (Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, Oregon, Virginia, Vermont, Washington state and Washington, D.C.), Pearson says the majority of people buying health coverage on exchanges won't face serious sticker shock.

"We have seen that about 6 percent average rate increases are expected for 2016," Pearson says.

As Avalere looks at the less expensive plans, she says, "We're seeing anywhere from a 5 percent increase for the lowest-cost plan available, to a 1 percent increase for the second-lowest-cost plan available. So we're really looking at very modest increases — very consistent with what we saw from 2014 to 2015." — "Health Insurance Premiums Will Go Up In 2016, But By How Much?" NPR, June 12, 2015​

almost all insurance companies are seeking 1-30 and in some cases 70% increases in their premium rates for next year.

See above.

>>in the first year insurance premiums soared 40% on average across the nation. it is why the 2nd year we saw 20-40% increases.

No evidence offered. I'm sure you got those numbers the same way you got the ones for 2016 — by pulling them out of yer ass.

Yes, unemployment fell to 138 million in spite of the Obama stimulus

You mean "employment," not "unemployment."

The stimulus was enacted in March 2009. Only a relatively small percentage of the money involved (which was one-third tax cuts) was spent that year. The 138 million figure is from Dec 2009. It's foolish to think that the horrible job losses associated with the Great Recession brought on by big tax cuts for the wealthy and irresponsible deregulation of the financial sector could be ended in less than nine months. In 2010, the situation turned around and we have added 12.6 million private sector jobs in the past five years.

>>that was for shovel ready jobs that wasn't supposed to let unemployment fall.

Another of yer stupid lies.

>>You want to blame Bush for the Obama stimulus that didn't work?

No. Only an idiot would suggest that, which is why yer doing it, I suppose.

>>Now you want to give Obama credit for losing jobs for two years after the stimulus was passed

No, I blame that on the people who caused the Great Recession — people you support.

>>and then creating jobs that only got us back to the level he inherited.

We've moved well past those numbers, by millions of full-time, private-sector jobs. And the high under Bush was the result of the housing bubble. The one that burst and led to the Great Recession.

>>Is it fact or opinion that Obama inherited 142 million working Americans?

Fact. And we now have nearly 149 million. And we've added more every month for more than five years.

>>Please learn how to research BLS.

I help gather the data. I've been doing it and reading the reports for fifteen years. I've told you that perhaps dozens of times. All you do is make an utter fool of yerself.

>>if you are going to give Obama credit for the low unemployment rate then use the same chart used to report those numbers.

If you don't like my numbers and graphs, let's see yers.

>>It really is sad that people like you continue to buy rhetoric and support an incompetent.

Yer a comedy act, albeit a dull and tiresome one.

>>What is it about liberalism that creates people like you who buy what they are told by the left and buy those opinions as fact?

The employment figures are facts. Yer a broken record of reactionary idiocy.
 
I agree.... on one hand, we have a forward thinking party that actually gets things done; on the other hand we have a party that refuses to live in the reality of the present and continually tries to legislate us into the past. As one once said "When I want to go forward, I put the car in "D" and when I want to backup, I put the car in in "R", I find this works in the voting booth, as well."

My how clever, never read that analogy before.

Considering how many Dead Ends that "D" has driven people into, it's a good thing there is an "R" to allow people to back the hell out of the mess they were put in.
 
I didn't take "Government class." I was busy studying political science, public administration, and American history in graduate school.

The reactionary line yer pushing would come as quite a surprise to a great many Americans, including the ones who fought and died to defend our democracy. The funny thing is the way you clowns you "Democrat" as an adjective. You don't want to refer to yer political opponents as "Democratic" because it makes people think of "democratic" — something almost universally regarded as good in the US.

There's no way this can be decided on facts, so I'll just encourage you to keep on saying that this country is not a democracy. That should help to isolate you politically, as a right-wing, anti-American nut.

As Avalere looks at the less expensive plans, she says, "We're seeing anywhere from a 5 percent increase for the lowest-cost plan available, to a 1 percent increase for the second-lowest-cost plan available. So we're really looking at very modest increases — very consistent with what we saw from 2014 to 2015." —

The stimulus was enacted in March 2009. Only a relatively small percentage of the money involved (which was one-third tax cuts) was spent that year. The 138 million figure is from Dec 2009. It's foolish to think that the horrible job losses associated with the Great Recession brought on by big tax cuts for the wealthy and irresponsible deregulation of the financial sector could be ended in less than nine months. In 2010, the situation turned around and we have added 12.6 million private sector jobs in the past five years.

>>that was for shovel ready jobs that wasn't supposed to let unemployment fall.

Another of yer stupid lies.

>>You want to blame Bush for the Obama stimulus that didn't work?

No. Only an idiot would suggest that, which is why yer doing it, I suppose.

>>Now you want to give Obama credit for losing jobs for two years after the stimulus was passed

No, I blame that on the people who caused the Great Recession — people you support.

>>and then creating jobs that only got us back to the level he inherited.

We've moved well past those numbers, by millions of full-time, private-sector jobs. And the high under Bush was the result of the housing bubble. The one that burst and led to the Great Recession.

>>Is it fact or opinion that Obama inherited 142 million working Americans?

Fact. And we now have nearly 149 million. And we've added more every month for more than five years.

>>Please learn how to research BLS.

I help gather the data. I've been doing it and reading the reports for fifteen years. I've told you that perhaps dozens of times. All you do is make an utter fool of yerself.

>>if you are going to give Obama credit for the low unemployment rate then use the same chart used to report those numbers.

If you don't like my numbers and graphs, let's see yers.

>>It really is sad that people like you continue to buy rhetoric and support an incompetent.

Yer a comedy act, albeit a dull and tiresome one.

>>What is it about liberalism that creates people like you who buy what they are told by the left and buy those opinions as fact?

The employment figures are facts. Yer a broken record of reactionary idiocy.

Keep buying the rhetoric, mimi, and keep proving Gruber right. For some reason you believe that the Obama stimulus passed and signed for shovel ready jobs wasn't implemented in 2009 and for some other reason you believe that much of it was tax cuts even though you cannot tell me how much of a tax cut you and your family got?

Then I keep asking questions so that I can learn from your brilliance. Is it fact or opinion that Obama inherited an employment number of 142 million and two years later it was 138 million?

Why don't you go back to 1980 and give Obama credit for the 50 million jobs created since then since you want to blame Bush for the first two years of the Obama Administration even though 842 billion was signed into law creating new taxpayers

I find it quite interesting that people like you continue to buy the lies and pass them off as fact. You continue to show how little you know about leadership, how little you understand about economics, and how poorly educated liberals are.

No only do I not like your numbers I have proven that liberalism is an ideology that passes off opinion and lies as fact
 
He said " healthcare plan through the "federal government" ( public option).
That was the only way to lower costs, by providing competion to private insurance companies.

When the public option went so did the completion and the savings.

If he was talking about a public option, then you wouldn't need to offer subsidies in the same sentence. You are reading what he said incorrectly.
 
Is it fact or opinion that SS and Medicare were put on budget and thus used for operating expenses of the United States?

Neither. It's a stupid lie.

Where does the payback of SS and Medicare come from?

"Payback"? You mean "benefits"? From the Trust Fund.

>>Do you know what an unfunded liability is?

Yes, but it looks like you don't. SS and Medicare are pay-as-you-go.

>>When you put your money into SS and Medicare and it is spent on something else where does the money come from to return to you when you retire?

It comes from the people who borrowed it and then paid it back with interest — the American public.

"Many" think aliens will beam them into their spaceships and take them away.

No, very few think that. Just as very few think that "interstate highways are irrelevant." How many spaceships have you visited?

>>I pay what I owe, I don't get a cent from what you owe.

Wrong. You can't afford to pay for the U.S. Marine Corps.

>>And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump it's ass hopping. Still irrelevant.

This goes back to my saying that "the Internet grew out of federal spending." That is undeniably relevant history involving, as I noted, "a prime example of the importance of government spending to scientific advances and innovation."

>>How much more expensive exactly? Tell me all about the hypothetical increase that never happened

No. Figure it out for yerself.

>>fact is you don't know what would happen nor would anyone else.

Experts can offer useful opinions.

>>For all we know the costs would have stayed the same or gone down or new car companies would have taken their place and we'd be better off.

For all we know, frogs can fly.

>>Therefore, another irrelevant and non-fact based opinion. :yawn:

It's common sense. Well, common to most people.

>>And a great argument point. Well done!

This goes back to yer claim that the taxes other people pay don't benefit you because they are required by law. All I can do is alugh at such nonsense.

>>Is it a reasonable choice?

[To go to prison rather than pay taxes.] What does it matter if it's reasonable? The point is that the taxes other people pay BENEFIT YOU.

>>That you don't think, as you said, is the main issue.

Humourous to an eight-year-old, perhaps.

1. force small business to provide health insurance at $17K/yr. or a $2,000 fine - they will pay the fine and save $15,000

$17K. Nothing to back that up as the cost of a health insurance plan.

One interesting point that seems to float around this thread is whether the justices overstepped their bounds by attempting to understand the intent behind the law, rather than give it a purely literal reading.

I'm a little surprised this point has legs. One of the pillars of statutory construction in jurisprudence for roughly the last three centuries has been to figure out the intent of the legislature.

You shouldn't be surprised. Some of these people got their legal education from the Jerry Springer Show.

So you don't think rising health care costs and bigger higher oit of pocket costs are a reasons to not like the AFFORDABLE Care Act?

Costs and premiums have been rising for years. Now they're rising more slowly. That's a reason to like the ACA.
 
mmi;1064757332]Neither. It's a stupid lie.

Credibility is a hard thing to recover and you lost yours a long time ago

Social Security History

"On-Budget"-

In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."

Now I could say you are lying but will simply state you aren't knowledgeable enough to know what you are talking about

Where does the payback of SS and Medicare come from?

"Payback"? You mean "benefits"? From the Trust Fund.

Both, FICA funds SS and Medicare which once again shows you have no concept of the taxes you pay or their purpose. AS I have shown you SS and Medicare were put on budget and have been spent leaving an unfunded liability(promise to people like you) and that doesn't bother you at all because like all liberals you just go out to the money tree and pick off a few dollars when you need them. This is total ignorance on your part

Yes, but it looks like you don't. SS and Medicare are pay-as-you-go.

Yes, you paid as you went, your money was spent so where are your benefits going to come from? Do you know what a Ponzi scheme is?

It comes from the people who borrowed it and then paid it back with interest — the American public.

So you believe the American people borrowed the money and are paying it back with interest? I hope people here can see what a problem liberalism is and how ignorant your comments are. The Govt. borrowed the money, spent it, and has to print it or borrow it to pay it back. Any idea how that is going to affect any children you have?
 
Hah, so do you think the private insurance numbers recovered after open enrollment?

Again, you misrepresented the figures as being "through 2014," when they were only for the first half of that year.

>>The ACA subsidies to insurers for losses derived from Exchange plans will end in 2017. Do you think things will get better after that?

As always, the ACA will prove to be a disaster … next year.

Obamacare hasn't even been fully implemented but it has done one great thing for people like you, created part time jobs rather than full time ones.

Full-time employment

Dec 2009 — 110.5 million

May 2015 — 121.4 million

Total part-time employment

Dec 2009 — 27.5 million

May 2015 — 27.5 million

Part-time employment for economic reasons

Dec 2009 — 9.1 million

May 2015 — 6.6 million

>>What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

Why do keep repeating the same lies in one thread after another? I suppose you realize that some of them will not be refuted. Sort of a spamming strategy.
 
Again, you misrepresented the figures as being "through 2014," when they were only for the first half of that year.

>>The ACA subsidies to insurers for losses derived from Exchange plans will end in 2017. Do you think things will get better after that?

As always, the ACA will prove to be a disaster … next year.



Full-time employment

Dec 2009 — 110.5 million

May 2015 — 121.4 million

Total part-time employment

Dec 2009 — 27.5 million

May 2015 — 27.5 million

Part-time employment for economic reasons

Dec 2009 — 9.1 million

May 2015 — 6.6 million

>>What is it about liberalism that creates this kind of loyalty?

Why do keep repeating the same lies in one thread after another? I suppose you realize that some of them will not be refuted. Sort of a spamming strategy.

Aw, please stop, this is embarrassing on your part. Such indoctrination

Original Data Value

Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Years: 1980 to 2015

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142152 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138438 138581 138751 139297 139241 139141 139179 139438 139396 139119 139044 139301
2011 139267 139400 139649 139610 139639 139392 139520 139940 140156 140336 140780 140890
2012 141633 141911 142069 141953 142231 142400 142270 142277 142953 143350 143279 143280
2013 143328 143429 143374 143665 143890 144025 144275 144288 144297 143453 144490 144671
2014 145206 145301 145796 145724 145868 146247 146401 146451 146607 147260 147331 147442
2015 148201 148297 148331 148523

Recession began December 2007, Obama took office January 2009 and in January 2011 there were 139 million working Americans. Apparently that is a liberal success story regarding the stimulus

Please note it took until mid 2012 to get back to the numbers Obama inherited and mid 2014 to get back to the December 2007 levels. You keep defending the indefensible, why?
 
If he was talking about a public option, then you wouldn't need to offer subsidies in the same sentence. You are reading what he said incorrectly.

Public option was still an insurance plan and while it would cost less than private insurance it was not "free" some people would still need subsidies to help cover the cost.
 
If the SC rules one way or the other then Obama will comply with the ruling. If not we have a constitutional crisis, and I don't think that's happening. What the poster was suggesting was picking and choosing which laws and rulings we want to follow. That won't work.


Lol !

Such BS. Such hypocrisy.

So laws upheld after being challenged have priority but existing laws can be ignored just as long as it benefits the Democrat Party ?
 
Public option was still an insurance plan and while it would cost less than private insurance it was not "free" some people would still need subsidies to help cover the cost.

A public option is automatic enrollment with no premiums, because they are embedded in your normal tax rate. Because of that, there is no need for subsidies to offset the cost.

At no time has anyone suggested the federal government start a health insurance company, offering plans to the general public through the exchanges or otherwise.
 
Social Security History

Now I could say you are lying but will simply state you aren't knowledgeable enough to know what you are talking about

You could indeed say that I'm a liar. But what is it you claim I'm lying about? What knowledge do you wish to impart to me?

>>Where does the payback of SS and Medicare come from?

I just answered that.

>>FICA funds SS and Medicare which once again shows you have no concept of the taxes you pay or their purpose.

FICA now partially funds Medicare. I'll let you figure out where the rest comes from.

>>AS I have shown you SS and Medicare were put on budget

You haven't shown me that. I've known it for about forty years, since I first started learning about fiscal policy.

>>and have been spent leaving an unfunded liability

Wrong. Money has been borrowed for the SS Trust Fund and has been and is being paid back with interest. There is no "unfunded liability" in a pay-as-you-go system.

>>This is total ignorance on your part

No, it's just yer usual drivel.

>>Yes, you paid as you went, your money was spent so where are your benefits going to come from?

From the Trust Fund.

>>Do you know what a Ponzi scheme is?

Do you think SS is a Ponzi scheme?

>>So you believe the American people borrowed the money and are paying it back with interest?

I don't just believe it. I know it.

>>I hope people here can see what a problem liberalism is and how ignorant your comments are.

Hope away.

>>The Govt. borrowed the money, spent it, and has to print it or borrow it to pay it back.

No, it can be paid back through revenues.

>>Any idea how that is going to affect any children you have?

I have none. It will not hurt anyone else's.
 
A public option is automatic enrollment with no premiums, because they are embedded in your normal tax rate. Because of that, there is no need for subsidies to offset the cost.

At no time has anyone suggested the federal government start a health insurance company, offering plans to the general public through the exchanges or otherwise.

No, a plan offered to the public by the govt is exactly what a public option is. The one considered during the health care debate in 2009 was a buy-in to Medicare.
 
Recession began December 2007, Obama took office January 2009 and in January 2011 there were 139 million working Americans.

Yeah? And?

>>Apparently that is a liberal success story regarding the stimulus

What is? You haven't said anything that can be regarded as a success or a failure.

>>Please note it took until mid 2012 to get back to the numbers Obama inherited and mid 2014 to get back to the December 2007 levels.

Please note the basic macroeconomic concept, which I've pointed out to you before, of a lag.

>>You keep defending the indefensible, why?

You keep posting lies and nonsense. I know why. Yer a liar and an idiot.
 
Lol !

Such BS. Such hypocrisy.

So laws upheld after being challenged have priority but existing laws can be ignored just as long as it benefits the Democrat Party ?

The "law" on the President's authority with regard to immigration is unclear. If he's Unitary Executive, he can direct ICE and tell them who to deport, correct? He's CEO, and the man in charge of directing their efforts. He doesn't tell them to quit deporting illegals - there are millions. He just says that we won't deport those who are good residents, etc. Why is that any different than a sheriff deciding to NOT prosecute jaywalkers, and directing his deputies to focus on violent crime? Or him telling deputies to ignore speeding unless the speeder is driving recklessly, but an apparently sober 75 in a 55 at 2am with no traffic is something we won't ticket.

Immigration might be different and it might be different to explicitly ALLOW them to stay, grant them permission, instead of choose not to deport - those have the same result but maybe the law treats them differently. I don't know and I doubt you do.

And give me a f'in break with the party line BS. George Bush crapped on civil liberties in his 8 years with hardly a peep of protest from right wingers. Presidents seize as much power as we let them seize, and from both parties, and today is Friday.....
 
mmi;1064757570]You could indeed say that I'm a liar. But what is it you claim I'm lying about? What knowledge do you wish to impart to me?

You don't even know what you post any more. I stated that SS and Medicare funds have been used to fund the daily operating expenses of the govt. The unified budget confirms that reality. Rather sad that you still believe what you are told and you said I was wrong and that was a lie. Where is your apology?

I just answered that.

You answered wrong

FICA now partially funds Medicare. I'll let you figure out where the rest comes from.

So tell me again why FICA which is a pay as you go system is used in the general fund as part of the unified budget?

You haven't shown me that. I've known it for about forty years, since I first started learning about fiscal policy.

Wow, circular rhetoric now, you don't have a problem with your SS and Medicare contribution being used to fund the daily operating expenses of the govt. and generating an unfunded liability showing again that once indoctrinated it is impossible for you to admit you are wrong

Wrong. Money has been borrowed for the SS Trust Fund and has been and is being paid back with interest. There is no "unfunded liability" in a pay-as-you-go system.

LOL, so if it is being paid back with interest why is there trillions in unfunded liabilities? Keep digging that hole deeper and showing everyone else here how poorly informed you are

From the Trust Fund.

Same old drivel on your part no substance and just repeating what you hear. The Trust fund cannot fund the unfunded liabilities created by the Federal Govt.

Do you think SS is a Ponzi scheme?

What do you call it when you fund someone else's retirement and someone in the future funds yours?

I don't just believe it. I know it.

What you know are the lies you have been told and taught, the question is when will you get tired of being made a fool of by the liberal elites

Hope away.

Got it, results, facts don't matter and are trumped by what you want to believe

No, it can be paid back through revenues.

You really don't understand the budget at all, do you. We are running deficits now so where is the surplus going to come from to pay back the money the govt. stole from you?


I have none.

No children? Great, best news of your posts
 
Yeah? And?

>>Apparently that is a liberal success story regarding the stimulus

What is? You haven't said anything that can be regarded as a success or a failure.

>>Please note it took until mid 2012 to get back to the numbers Obama inherited and mid 2014 to get back to the December 2007 levels.

Please note the basic macroeconomic concept, which I've pointed out to you before, of a lag.

>>You keep defending the indefensible, why?

You keep posting lies and nonsense. I know why. Yer a liar and an idiot.

What I proved is that there haven't been the jobs created that Obama and you claim. you want to continue with this joke of an argument carry on. Guess nothing will ever overcome the indoctrination you received as a liberal. Please think with the brain God gave you and not only with your heart.

So I post the BLS chart and that makes me a liar and an idiot? I really feel sorry for you
 
What I proved is that there haven't been the jobs created that Obama and you claim.

No, you simply adamantly refuse to recognize the lag effect involved. Yer a foolish, blind ideologue. There are time lags all around you. Pull yer head out of yer butt and you'll see them.

>>I post the BLS chart and that makes me a liar and an idiot?

You always post ugly piles of cut-and-paste. Numbers by themselves don't prove anything. You need to use them to make an argument. Yer arguments are without substance.

>>I really feel sorry for you

And I continue to say that you should save yer compassion for yerself.
 
Back
Top Bottom