• 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!

Do you support Obamacare ?

Do you support Obamacare ?


  • Total voters
    85
The only real complaint I have of Roberts is that he didn't try to pin down the Democrats on whether the punishment for not buying insurance is a tax or a fine...considering they identified it as both at various times. He allowed them to stick with it as a tax in the end and that's what screwed the people.

In my opinion, the Obama administration had some embarrassing info on Roberts and threatened to publish it. According to other judges on the bench, Roberts started out as against the ACA.
 
In my opinion, the Obama administration had some embarrassing info on Roberts and threatened to publish it. According to other judges on the bench, Roberts started out as against the ACA.

Embarrassing info are not grounds for impeachment, trial, conviction and removal from the bench. If the Obama adminstration has embarrasing info on Roberts that only means that others do as well.

Your conspiracy is lame leaning toward ridiculous.
 
Embarrassing info are not grounds for impeachment, trial, conviction and removal from the bench. If the Obama adminstration has embarrasing info on Roberts that only means that others do as well.

Your conspiracy is lame leaning toward ridiculous.

Get a grip, sport. I merely posted my opinion. I did not and I am not calling for Robert's impeachment. The incompetent twit in the white house would then get to name his replacement.
 
Get a grip, sport. I merely posted my opinion. I did not and I am not calling for Robert's impeachment. The incompetent twit in the white house would then get to name his replacement.

Your 'opinion' is up for scrutiny as well as any other post.

Again..embarrassing info are not grounds for impeachment. Your fantastic machinations still needs to be rooted in some semblance of reality.
 
I would assume since you are indicating you have answers....that you actually had something in mind. BOth you and I know the devil is in the details and you haven't even produced a semblance of a framework, let alone details.

Are you still harping on that? Forget it. Start a thread about it. Maybe you'll get someone else to talk about the Republicans. In this thread, you should be talking about Obamacare.
 
So what you are suggesting is that "something is better then nothing...even if that something is worse then what already existed".

No. I'm saying that Obamacare is a better alternative than doing nothing. I don't believe it's worse than what already existed. A single payer system would be much better, but it'll be a long time before we get there.
 
Are you still harping on that? Forget it. Start a thread about it. Maybe you'll get someone else to talk about the Republicans. In this thread, you should be talking about Obamacare.

Sorry, you put stuff out there as if it is fact and do not expect to be called on it?

It was important enough to you to put out there. And you are having issues with being called on it.

Face the reality. Even those who you think are "proObamacare" really WANT better answers. I was hoping you had some.

But I get it, you had nothing to begin with and are backing off. But you can start another thread if you have better answers than ACA - I want better answers.

But for now ACA is what have .

And my post has everything to do with the OP - they asked if I supported Obamacare. I voted other. It is what we have (a foot in the door) until something better comes along. I am hoping for something better.
 
Last edited:
Your 'opinion' is up for scrutiny as well as any other post.

Again..embarrassing info are not grounds for impeachment. Your fantastic machinations still needs to be rooted in some semblance of reality.

I never suggested that embarrassing info is grounds for impeachment. I did suggest the possibility that embarrassing info could have influenced Justice Roberts decision to do a 180 turnaround and support obamacare. I don't see any other possible motive for his sudden reversal.
 
No. I'm saying that Obamacare is a better alternative than doing nothing. I don't believe it's worse than what already existed. A single payer system would be much better, but it'll be a long time before we get there.

The truth is that while Obamacare helps a relatively few, in the long run it is worse then doing nothing. The only people who were really helped were those who qualified for subsidies. Everyone else other then the very wealthy who can afford Cadillac policies, are getting an inferior policy with high premiums and a very high deductible that makes health insurance meaningless as anything other then a catastrophic policy. Healthcare reforms were certainly needed, however obamacare is not the answer. Leaving it the insurance market alone would have been less damaging. And we have not seen the worst of it yet. When the employer mandate hits....all hell is going to break loose.
 
I never suggested that embarrassing info is grounds for impeachment. I did suggest the possibility that embarrassing info could have influenced Justice Roberts decision to do a 180 turnaround and support obamacare. I don't see any other possible motive for his sudden reversal.

Like many justices, Roberts wants to be remembered as brilliant. so he tried to suck up to legal historians on both sides in an attempt to be clever. He upheld Obamacare so as to ingratiate himself to the socialists and he denied that the commerce clause allowed it so as to appeal to the constitutional originalists.
 
In my opinion, the Obama administration had some embarrassing info on Roberts and threatened to publish it. According to other judges on the bench, Roberts started out as against the ACA.

Although I'm not a lawyer, I work in the legal business. I understand (somewhat) Roberts' decision. People who don't work in the law often have trouble understanding legalities vs. feelings or the ultimate effect of a ruling, or even that a judge may not like having to make a particular ruling, but the law requires it.

Roberts decided that, based on other laws and statutes, the so-called penalty is, in fact, a tax. He may have hated having to rule that way. But if that's how he saw it, legally speaking, he had no choice but to rule that way. If he had decided otherwise, there might be other so-called penalties that would have fallen because they wouldn't be considered taxes, either.

Roberts didn't betray anyone. He came to a decision based on the law, as he saw it, as the law was presented to him by both sides. And whether you agree with that particular decision or not, it is a GOOD thing that a person comes to a legal ruling based on the law rather than how he FEELS about it and despite what his preference would be for the outcome.

Sotomayor has decided a couple of cases that were disappointments to Democrats. But, like Roberts, it's a good sign when a person rules a way that he or she probably would prefer the law let him/her rule another way.

BTW, justices have on occasion mentioned this fact, that they have to rule a certain way because of a statute or regulation, and that the fix for that would be the changing of that statute/regulation. That is the answer to a legal court opinion that results in an outcome that most people don't like. The answer it to cure it by congressional statute.

Congress could have fixed this, you know, but chose not to. Instead, the House chose to vote to repeal the ACA over 40 times, knowing it was a waste of time. So I ask you....how serious were the Republicans about fixing the ACA for the people. Or has it just been political all along?
 
Last edited:
Congress could have fixed this, you know, but chose not to. Instead, the House chose to vote to repeal the ACA over 40 times…

There is not, and never will be, any way to fix this, that doesn't begin with repealing the whole stinking mess, seeing to it that as many as possible of the cretins who are responsible for inflicting it on this nation are removed from office, and then starting over.

You cannot polish a turd.
 
There is not, and never will be, any way to fix this, that doesn't begin with repealing the whole stinking mess, seeing to it that as many as possible of the cretins who are responsible for inflicting it on this nation are removed from office, and then starting over.

You cannot polish a turd.

Not fix the ACA. I meant that Congress could have fixed the laws on which the S.Ct. based its decision that the penalty is a tax under the Commerce Code. Of course, changing it may not have been retroactive, but it would have been a fix to the law that allowed the penalty to continue.

Penalty or not, the ACA was not on the chopping block. Only whether the penalty and something else was legal.
 
Like many justices, Roberts wants to be remembered as brilliant. so he tried to suck up to legal historians on both sides in an attempt to be clever. He upheld Obamacare so as to ingratiate himself to the socialists and he denied that the commerce clause allowed it so as to appeal to the constitutional originalists.

Exactly.
 
Although I'm not a lawyer, I work in the legal business. I understand (somewhat) Roberts' decision. People who don't work in the law often have trouble understanding legalities vs. feelings or the ultimate effect of a ruling, or even that a judge may not like having to make a particular ruling, but the law requires it.

Roberts decided that, based on other laws and statutes, the so-called penalty is, in fact, a tax. He may have hated having to rule that way. But if that's how he saw it, legally speaking, he had no choice but to rule that way. If he had decided otherwise, there might be other so-called penalties that would have fallen because they wouldn't be considered taxes, either.

First....the job of a US Supreme Court justice is to interpret the law as it's written...not change it to what he wants it to say, The penalty was not written into the law as a tax and during the debate leading up to passing it, Obama and the democrats denied that it was a tax. Roberts acted as an activist judge.

Roberts didn't betray anyone. He came to a decision based on the law, as he saw it, as the law was presented to him by both sides. And whether you agree with that particular decision or not, it is a GOOD thing that a person comes to a legal ruling based on the law rather than how he FEELS about it and despite what his preference would be for the outcome.

Roberts betrayed the US constitution and all who support it. Once again...the penalty was not written into the law as a tax. It was written in as a penalty.....and in fact it is still referred to as a penalty. As it's written, it is in violation of the 10th amendment. One does not need to be a lawyer to figure that out.

Sotomayor has decided a couple of cases that were disappointments to Democrats. But, like Roberts, it's a good sign when a person rules a way that he or she probably would prefer the law let him/her rule another way.

B.S. They should stick to interpreting the law as it is written and judge it based on the constitution. They should notthrow in how they think it should have been written.

BTW, justices have on occasion mentioned this fact, that they have to rule a certain way because of a statute or regulation, and that the fix for that would be the changing of that statute/regulation. That is the answer to a legal court opinion that results in an outcome that most people don't like. The answer it to cure it by congressional statute.

Fixing it is not in their job description. They are the judicial branch, not the legislative branch.

Congress could have fixed this, you know, but chose not to. Instead, the House chose to vote to repeal the ACA over 40 times, knowing it was a waste of time. So I ask you....how serious were the Republicans about fixing the ACA for the people. Or has it just been political all along?

The republicans did offer some fixes, however they were either stopped by Harry Reid's refusal to even bring them up for a vote or Obama's threat to veto them. If the republicans take the Senate, they might get some fixes in if Obama gets the message that the vast majority of Americans are very unhappy with obamacare, however I suspect that little will be accomplished until Obama is out of office.
 
Yes it does. This makes perfect sense. Consider this conversation:

Patient: Hey Doctor, I'm about to die. Will you save my life?
Doctor: Of course I will. I am a compassionate human and I am obligated by law to save your life.
Patient: But how much will it cost?
Doctor: Oh don't you worry about that. Those things aren't important. Do you want me to save your life?
Patient: Well of course.
Doctor: Then don't worry about such unimportant things like that. Your health is way more important than money.
Patient: You are right. Thanks Doctor. You are a great man.

How much did the surgery cost in the above scenario? Before answering, consider the age old question. Where does a 1,800 pound Gorilla sit?

Then two answers are pretty much the same. When someone saves your life, you owe them as much money as they ask for. That is why many argue that the profit factor should be removed from the equation.

But that's not how billing is done. A patient doesn't decide how much they'll pay.

The US healthcare system suffers because there is no transparency. And nothing either party is proposing fixes this.
 
There is not, and never will be, any way to fix this, that doesn't begin with repealing the whole stinking mess, seeing to it that as many as possible of the cretins who are responsible for inflicting it on this nation are removed from office, and then starting over.

You cannot polish a turd.

Which part of the law do you hate specifically?
 
Back
Top Bottom