• 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]

So it is the will of the justices and not the will of the people but probably only when the ruling supports your position? You seem a little conflicted here. It wasn't the will of the people that enacted Obamacare it was a socialist/liberal Democrat Party alone that did it and they lost the House and ultimately the Congress over it. I repeat. you want the will of the people on things like Obamacare, then put it on the ballot. This remains a state issue regardless of what activist justices think.

It is so strange the way you guys seem to lack any understanding of the US's system of government at all. Do you live in the US?

In the US, the Constitution lays out a division of responsibility between the branches. The Constitution grants certain powers to each branch. All the members of all the branches represent the people through different mechanisms. Interpreting the law, including the Constitution, is the job of the judicial branch. If a question of changing the law comes up, that goes to the legislature. If a question of interpreting the law comes up, that goes to the judicial branch.

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Direct democracy doesn't work very well at all. States that implement ballot measures usually come to regret it. For example, if you put a proposition on the ballot asking voters if they want to spend $10 million on a new rail station, just about exactly the same number of people will support it as if you put it on there with a $10 billion pricetag. People just don't have the time to sit and work through all the policy details. It works much better to have the people pick representatives and have them learn all the details on the people's behalf.

Another problem direct democracy states tend to run into is voters requiring them to spend a ton on various things, requiring them to keep taxes low and then denying them the ability to borrow. So, you end up in this weird situation where the legislature has no choice but to slash core services while being required to keep spending on whatever frivolous things, and keep the tax rates that the ballot measures addressed low and make up for it with whatever avenues are available, like setting super high DMV fees or whatnot to balance the books... Policy details just isn't the kind of thing a person can intuit the correct answer to in 15 minutes a year sitting on their couch. It's the kind of thing you want teams of accountants and analysts and whatnot pouring over for years.

The idea that representative democracy works better isn't just my personal opinion, that's one of the core ideas the nation was founded on and it has worked out quite well. Direct democracy has sometimes worked out ok, but generally only at a very small scale. Representative democracy has a far better track record.
 
Last edited:
Yet the only candidate the GOP can put up with a ghost of a chance against her is unlikely to make it through the hustings, even if he manages to lose his last name in the process..

Which goes to the point that Gruber made, the Democrat voter base is "stupid."
 
It is so strange the way you guys seem to lack any understanding of the US's system of government at all. Do you live in the US?

In the US, the Constitution lays out a division of responsibility between the branches. The Constitution grants certain powers to each branch. All the members of all the branches represent the people through different mechanisms. Interpreting the law, including the Constitution, is the job of the judicial branch. If a question of changing the law comes up, that goes to the legislature. If a question of interpreting the law comes up, that goes to the judicial branch.

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Direct democracy doesn't work very well at all. States that implement ballot measures usually come to regret it. For example, if you put a proposition on the ballot asking voters if they want to spend $10 million on a new rail station, just about exactly the same number of people will support it as if you put it on there with a $10 billion pricetag. People just don't have the time to sit and work through all the policy details. It works much better to have the people pick representatives and have them learn all the details on the people's behalf.

Another problem direct democracy states tend to run into is voters requiring them to spend a ton on various things, requiring them to keep taxes low and then denying them the ability to borrow. So, you end up in this weird situation where the legislature has no choice but to slash core services while being required to keep spending on whatever frivolous things, and keep the tax rates that the ballot measures addressed low and make up for it with whatever avenues are available, like setting super high DMV fees or whatnot to balance the books... Policy details just isn't the kind of thing a person can intuit the correct answer to in 15 minutes a year sitting on their couch. It's the kind of thing you want teams of accountants and analysts and whatnot pouring over for years.

Sorry but it seems to be that it is you that fails to understand the role of the various governments we have. Fact or fiction, our Founders created a small central govt. with a part time legislature?

We do have a Representative Democracy that has gotten away from the Constitutional principles our Founders laid out and it is people like you who are liberal/socialist activists whose goal is to destroy this country and the foundation upon which it was built.

What we have here now are a vocal minority imposing their will on the American people though activists Justices and thus fundamentally changing this country into the European socialist economies all of which have failed. Keep it up and when it is too late, the people of TX will be the ones left standing.

It really is a shame that the principles of risk taking, personal responsibility, individual wealth creation, and neighbor helping neighbor are lost in the liberal agenda.
 
Sorry but it seems to be that it is you that fails to understand the role of the various governments we have. Fact or fiction, our Founders created a small central govt. with a part time legislature?

We do have a Representative Democracy that has gotten away from the Constitutional principles our Founders laid out and it is people like you who are liberal/socialist activists whose goal is to destroy this country and the foundation upon which it was built.

What we have here now are a vocal minority imposing their will on the American people though activists Justices and thus fundamentally changing this country into the European socialist economies all of which have failed. Keep it up and when it is too late, the people of TX will be the ones left standing.

It really is a shame that the principles of risk taking, personal responsibility, individual wealth creation, and neighbor helping neighbor are lost in the liberal agenda.

Somebody sure got you all worked up lol.

The founders didn't say the government has to be a particular "size" or specify hours legislators should work or something in the Constitution. Those sorts of decisions are left to the people acting through their representatives. The Constitution lays out the process of governing, the powers the federal government has and the rights the people have. Beyond that, they left it up to us to decide.

And, of course, if they hadn't left those kind of things up to us- if they had locked in specific policy approaches and whatnot- then the country couldn't have survived past whenever those policies stopped making sense. They knew that of course and talked about it extensively and frequently.
 
Somebody sure got you all worked up lol.

The founders didn't say the government has to be a particular "size" or specify hours legislators should work or something in the Constitution. Those sorts of decisions are left to the people acting through their representatives. The Constitution lays out the process of governing, the powers the federal government has and the rights the people have. Beyond that, they left it up to us to decide.

And, of course, if they hadn't left those kind of things up to us- if they had locked in specific policy approaches and whatnot- then the country couldn't have survived past whenever those policies stopped making sense. They knew that of course and talked about it extensively and frequently.

No, the Founders knew however what you fail to recognize, power corrupts, and when you have a 3.9 trillion dollar govt. as Obama wants you create a corrupt power that will destroy itself. The Founders knew where the power belonged, at the state level, closest to the people. The Congressional Representatives learned rapidly that they could buy votes and keep power for life while looking for their next job rather than doing their current job.

It is the elected officials that took more and more power and the stupid electorate allowing them. Term limits is the answer. The states learned it when will you and others? Oh, wait, you are getting what you want through activist justices and Congressional Representatives taking on personal responsibility issues that alone or with your neighbor you cannot sell to the local electorate.
 
The GOP remains hellbent on electoral suicide, and the Democrat voter base is "stupid"? (why the " " ?)

Apparently the 2010-2012-2014 election results show that the Democrat base doesn't get it and it is proven here everyday. Keep pissing off the majority by passing and signing partisan legislation and the end result is going to be fun to watch. There is a silent majority in this country and that majority has about had it with liberal actions and implementation of policies contrary to the vision of our Founders.
 
No, the Founders knew however what you fail to recognize, power corrupts, and when you have a 3.9 trillion dollar govt. as Obama wants you create a corrupt power that will destroy itself. The Founders knew where the power belonged, at the state level, closest to the people. The Congressional Representatives learned rapidly that they could buy votes and keep power for life while looking for their next job rather than doing their current job.

It is the elected officials that took more and more power and the stupid electorate allowing them. Term limits is the answer. The states learned it when will you and others? Oh, wait, you are getting what you want through activist justices and Congressional Representatives taking on personal responsibility issues that alone or with your neighbor you cannot sell to the local electorate.

That perception- that the founders like meant to put some limit in there on the budget or number of staff or something, but somehow just forgot, is actually pretty whacky. They thought very long and hard about what rules to set and they did a pretty good job figuring out what to lock in for the future and what to leave up to future generations to adjust as needed.

Are you aware of who the founders are? Like, how they became the founders? They were a committee of the Continental Congress that was formed for the purpose of figuring out ways to make the federal government stronger and more powerful, particularly against the states, because the government was failing from being too weak. They ultimately decided that they couldn't do enough to strengthen it under the Articles of Confederation, so they broke away and started from scratch with the Constitution. They were keenly aware that over time, people might learn that they might need a stronger, bigger government because they were in the process of doing exactly that as they wrote the Constitution.
 
That perception- that the founders like meant to put some limit in there on the budget or number of staff or something, but somehow just forgot, is actually pretty whacky. They thought very long and hard about what rules to set and they did a pretty good job figuring out what to lock in for the future and what to leave up to future generations to adjust as needed.

Are you aware of who the founders are? Like, how they became the founders? They were a committee of the Continental Congress that was formed for the purpose of figuring out ways to make the federal government stronger and more powerful, particularly against the states, because the government was failing from being too weak. They ultimately decided that they couldn't do enough to strengthen it under the Articles of Confederation, so they broke away and started from scratch with the Constitution. They were keenly aware that over time, people might learn that they might need a stronger, bigger government because they were in the process of doing exactly that as they wrote the Constitution.

No, the problem is a basic lack of understanding on your part as to what the role of the Central govt. is and the vision our Founders had that is well documented. You further are always looking to a massive central govt to implement a one size fits all Federal program to implement programs you cannot sell in your state. It is typical liberalism/socialism and a desire to actually destroy the free enterprise/capitalism economy we have since it seems to be the liberal attitude of equal outcome because of what some others have achieved and we can only have those rich liberal elites destroying the economy they benefited from. In other words they get theirs so let's destroy the system that generated that wealth.

You people either have no idea what you are doing or do and that is what makes you dangerous
 
Yet the only candidate the GOP can put up with a ghost of a chance against her is unlikely to make it through the hustings, even if he manages to lose his last name in the process..

There are several who would be problematical for Hillary. You alluded to Jeb. The Repub Dems fear most is Marco Rubio. Scott Walker and John Kasich would also be formidable.
 
There are several who would be problematical for Hillary. You alluded to Jeb. The Repub Dems fear most is Marco Rubio. Scott Walker and John Kasich would also be formidable.

After voting and supporting an incompetent like Obama, Democrats don't have a lot of credibility talking about GOP candidates since they don't have any concept of quality, experience, and a successful resume.
 
There are several who would be problematical for Hillary. You alluded to Jeb. The Repub Dems fear most is Marco Rubio. Scott Walker and John Kasich would also be formidable.

:agree: They're already busy demonizing Rubio and Walker. Kasich hasn't declared yet, so they haven't started on him, but if and when he does, they will, big time IMO, because Kasich is from Ohio, one of the "must-carry" States for the Repubs! I wonder if he has any speeding tickets? :mrgreen:
 
:agree: They're already busy demonizing Rubio and Walker. Kasich hasn't declared yet, so they haven't started on him, but if and when he does, they will, big time IMO, because Kasich is from Ohio, one of the "must-carry" States for the Repubs! I wonder if he has any speeding tickets? :mrgreen:

Bring it on.:shoot
 
I wonder if at any time during my life someone will actually propose a healthcare law that positively impacts those of us who have been paying for our own healthcare insurance during our working lives, you know....make healthcare affordable for everyone and not just the people who need the rest of us to subsidize them and their families. Dare to dream....

Amen!
 
This and the SC ruling on gay marriage. It's a bad day to be a conservative, you could almot pity them.

It's okay, son. Obamacare gave us control of the house of reps, the senate, and most of the state legislatures and governorships in the nation. ACA is a horrible law that is having a devastating effect on the middle class, however politically it is the gift that keeps on giving. I suspect that the democrats who are now taking victory laps over the US Supreme Court decision will again run away from Obamacare in the 2016 race as they did in 2014.
 
Well, prices have been rising more slowly since the ACA went into effect, so that's at least something, but if you actually want to see the prices get under control, the only way to do that is single payer. A public option might help, but only single payer really solves the problem.

The claim of prices rising more slowly is an outright DNC lie. As for single payer,...obamacare killed any chance of that happening for a very long time.
 
:agree: They're already busy demonizing Rubio and Walker. Kasich hasn't declared yet, so they haven't started on him, but if and when he does, they will, big time IMO, because Kasich is from Ohio, one of the "must-carry" States for the Repubs! I wonder if he has any speeding tickets? :mrgreen:

Kasich has made the moral case for embracing the ACA's Medicaid expansion. That's got to be a tough sell in a GOP primary.

In the primaries four years ago Rick Perry got himself into trouble by supporting compassion for immigrant children and charging that opponents of DREAM-esqe legislation are heartless ("If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they have been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart."). That didn't go over well with the base, as I recall.

Kasich has arguably gone further, implying opponents of Obama's Medicaid expansion are going to hell: "Now, when you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small. But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a good answer." How are the poor-bashing, ACA-despising ogres in the base going to like it when he holds a mirror up to them?
 
It isn't called the "Slower Price Increase Act". It's falsely labeled. It doesn't make healthcare affordable. It isn't affordable. In fact, it's the opposite. If they truly wanted to make healthcare affordable, that wasn't the way to do it.

What is amusing is that right after the massive increases they sing: "But but but.. it's increasing slower"
 
The claim of prices rising more slowly is an outright DNC lie.

Welcome to Earth.

Hospital prices drop for the first time
By Melanie Evans | February 21, 2015

Payers' efforts to drive down hospital prices may be succeeding.

Prices that private and public health insurers paid to acute-care hospitals declined in January, compared with the same month a year ago, the first time they have dropped since the federal government began collecting these data. . .

This appears to be a combination of the public sector pressure, but an even more fierce change on behalf of the private payers,” said Paul Hughes-Cromwick, a senior health economist at the Altarum Institute's Center for Sustainable Health Spending.

“Insurers are more aggressively bargaining with hospitals and more aggressively investing in programs that lower hospital utilization rates,” said Neraj Sood, an associate professor in health economics and policy at the University of Southern California.
 
Same way every country on the planet does it. Same way every employer plan works. If you work for a large company, the youngsters subsidize the old, the healthy the sick, etc. And when those young folks get old, they are subsidized by the people not born when they started work. It's how all health insurance actually works, including Medicare.

If you've got a better idea, love to hear it. If you underwrite a 60 year old with diabetes, and charge him the full cost, he's pretty much uninsurable and therefore will never get health insurance unless he's well into the top 10% or so. If that 60 year old has survived cancer, he'll never get insurance of any kind. So what is the ObamacareFail plan other than throwing bricks at any idea anyone else comes up with?

Start with repealing Obamacare. The goal should have been to make health insurance better...not worse. Obamacare has made it horribly worse.
 
Yes. Doing nothing would have meant prices continuing to rise rapidly, single payer would stop prices from rising, the public option would give us slowly rising prices and it was hoped that the ACA would give us prices rising at a moderate rate, which it has in fact achieved.

That's why we want single payer and when it became clear that could happen, tried for the public option, but you guys managed to block that too, so the ACA was the best we could get in terms of prices.

While reform was needed, doing nothing at all would have been less damaging then obamacare. And single payer is just "stupid". When you take the profit incentive out of medical care, you end up with very limited medical care and waiting lists and rationing follows.
 
Sounds good - all it takes is the declaration? Love it.

Taxes are unconstitutional! Can I quit filing my taxes now?

Be my guest. However taxes are not unconstitutional,.
 
It's called single payer. Every developed country on the planet has some version of it. Everyone is covered, far cheaper, excellent results, etc. But that's socialism, which is great for Grandma, but will ruin the country if it's extended to the rest of us.

Every developed nation with any version of single payer also has waiting lists and rationing. And it's not cheaper. It merely costs the government less, because the government is providing less. And the results are not better.
 
You people either have no idea what you are doing or do and that is what makes you dangerous

Either that, or we are just way more informed than you are. Which do you think is more likely?
 
Back
Top Bottom