RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law

RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

StrangerThan -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 9:55:11 AM)
One does not equate to the other taz and you know it. Congress has always had the ability to regulate actual commerce. Nowhere does it state that Congress can require commerce of an individual. That's the difference. Granting them license to do so goes above and beyond the wording of the Constitution, the intent of those who wrote it, and common sense. When you give government the ability to require you as a private citizen to purchase something, you are granting them power that was never intended for them. You are also granting them power to exercise it in any fashion they so choose thereafter. You're setting the precedent not just for this one issue, but establishing ground for the future.

tj444 -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 10:02:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barelynangel Huh? You may want to quote the REST of the post before taking out of context what i said. That quote has nothing to do with what you have or what your policy covers. I know what my policy covers -- i know what the policies of our client's cover. If you don't know what your policy covers then that is YOUR fault. Go back and MAKE them tell you what exactly your policy covers. If you don't understand it make them explain it to you. Fuck have some personal responsibility. Stamping your foot because you can't understand someone on a discussion board due to your own ignorance of your policy doesn't mean everyone must be ignorant. I have no clue how insurance company's determine the rates for you or others. I know what i pay, i know how they came to that number, i know how the other quotes did, and i know what it covers. How do i know all of this BECAUSE I ASKED. Your choice to remain ignorant about your stuff is your own. Take some personal responsibility for your own ignorance. angel I am not stamping my foot. I know what rate i pay, I never mentioned rates at all, its the coverage that i have been talking about. You have seem to been saying that the minimums required by law covers more costs than the minimum amount and that is what i dont understand, someone ends up paying somewhere.

barelynangel -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 10:34:56 AM)
And raising the limits won't change that. Here's a very short lesson -- 1) woman gets hit by a bus, she has insurance. 2) The insurance company and the hospital have an agreement as to how much they actually pay. 3) In a case wherein the hospital bill was $132,000 the insurance company pays $23,000. While the $132,000 can be gone after by the Plaintiff, the plaintiff ONLY has to pay back whatever of that $23,000 the medical insurance company chooses to settle for. They do not pay MORE than $23,000 because the hospital bill was settled BY the medical insurance company. Hospitals get into it if the person has no medical insurance and even they agree to settle these bills. IF the settlememt was $50,000 the subrogation claim by the medical insurance company WOULD STILL BE A NEGOTIATION to settle it and that is on the Plaintiff. Sometimes the medical insurance company's will enter into the case to protect their subrogation claims. So while you are trying to make the limits of auto insurance the issue here -- it isn't. The Plaintiff gets a settlement, they are responsible for paying off the subrogations IF they choose to settle those subrogations less than what is demanded then that isn't the auto insurance company's fault or problem or even the defendants as te PLAINTIFF's have the money and they keep whatever doesn't go towards bills as in the release they are responsible for paying the subrogation claims outside of medicare now. So yeah there may be someone paying somewhere but it's not all based upon the simplicity you think it is with auto limits. It's all a game of negotiation started by someone getting into an accident. angel

Real0ne -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 10:44:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity [...The majority of the panel said they couldn’t uphold the mandate because there would be no limit to Congress’s powers if they did. Opponents of the law have frequently argued that if Congress can require people to buy insurance, they can force people to do anything else, such as buy broccoli or a gym membership for their health benefits. they already do. they force people to pay property taxes FOR SERVICES! any wonder why our laws are so fucked up?

ArizonaBossMan -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 12:54:45 PM)
Hopefully the supreme court will stop this nonsense that the left shoved down our throats.

tazzygirl -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 1:33:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan One does not equate to the other taz and you know it. Congress has always had the ability to regulate actual commerce. Nowhere does it state that Congress can require commerce of an individual. That's the difference. Granting them license to do so goes above and beyond the wording of the Constitution, the intent of those who wrote it, and common sense. When you give government the ability to require you as a private citizen to purchase something, you are granting them power that was never intended for them. You are also granting them power to exercise it in any fashion they so choose thereafter. You're setting the precedent not just for this one issue, but establishing ground for the future. Yet the SC has stated a corporation now has certain rights that an individual has. Many of us see the handwriting on the walls.

Owner59 -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 2:11:45 PM)
He`s won about as many as he`s lost. Cons aren`t so concerned with the law as they are in hearing that "Obama lost". It`ll be up to the SCOTUS, sometime soon. It`s interesting that the folks who don`t want their tax money going to paying for other people`s health care, are against this law. It`s the people who use ERs and other medical services and don`t pay,that this law targets. It`s to offset the money states give hospitals, who are required to give care whether or not the patient can pay. Making the free-loaders pay is a con-mantra,after all. A core conservative value,is personal responsibility. Right? Can we have a con explain this apparent contradiction?

Lucylastic -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 2:37:33 PM)
<snip>Can we have a con explain this apparent contradiction? </end of snip> not a sensible one

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 3:26:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl This isnt snark. If one state can be allowed to uphold the laws of another state.... curious, ya know? I dont know where youre going with the sentence fragment. What about "upholding the laws of another state"? And wherever youre going with it, be careful to distinguish between "upholding", "recognizing", and "reciprocity". Here is the thing. In order to drive, you have to have insurance. However, you dont have to drive. Its what everyone who disagrees with the law is saying. You dont have to drive. Insurance is a way for those who provide health care to get paid for their services. Im sure we can all agree upon that... either you pay, or your insurance does. No arguments.. so far. Here is the difference... and its something that will have to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court. If you dont have auto insurance, you cant get a license plate or a DL's, in many states. I cant say all, nor am I going to bother to look it up. If you dont have health insurance, do you get denied emergency care? Or course not. Its illegal to do so. If everyone was entitled to drive, would you agree that if they didnt want auto insurance, they wouldnt have to get it? But everyone is entitled to some level of health care... even if it is just the ER... but it isnt just the ER, it also includes ambulance service and even hospital stays. If health care had the option to turn away people in dire need, would that be agreeable? Because it may come down to that. Your premise on insurance is wrong to start with. It is not a way for those who provide health care to get paid, it is a way for the users of health care to share their risk of large payments. Health care providers got paid for centuries before there was health insurance. As far as ER care goes, it depends on your meaning of "entitled". I disagree that anyone is intrinsically "entitled" to any level of health care, so yes, the option to turn them away would be quite agreeable. But STATE mandated auto insurance has absoultely nothing to do with FEDERALLY mandated health insurance to begin with. Your whole scenario is nonsense as a result.

lockedaway -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 3:33:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl This isnt snark. If one state can be allowed to uphold the laws of another state.... curious, ya know? I dont know where youre going with the sentence fragment. What about "upholding the laws of another state"? And wherever youre going with it, be careful to distinguish between "upholding", "recognizing", and "reciprocity". Here is the thing. In order to drive, you have to have insurance. However, you dont have to drive. Its what everyone who disagrees with the law is saying. You dont have to drive. Insurance is a way for those who provide health care to get paid for their services. Im sure we can all agree upon that... either you pay, or your insurance does. No arguments.. so far. Here is the difference... and its something that will have to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court. If you dont have auto insurance, you cant get a license plate or a DL's, in many states. I cant say all, nor am I going to bother to look it up. If you dont have health insurance, do you get denied emergency care? Or course not. Its illegal to do so. If everyone was entitled to drive, would you agree that if they didnt want auto insurance, they wouldnt have to get it? But everyone is entitled to some level of health care... even if it is just the ER... but it isnt just the ER, it also includes ambulance service and even hospital stays. If health care had the option to turn away people in dire need, would that be agreeable? Because it may come down to that. Your premise on insurance is wrong to start with. It is not a way for those who provide health care to get paid, it is a way for the users of health care to share their risk of large payments. Health care providers got paid for centuries before there was health insurance. As far as ER care goes, it depends on your meaning of "entitled". I disagree that anyone is intrinsically "entitled" to any level of health care, so yes, the option to turn them away would be quite agreeable. But STATE mandated auto insurance has absoultely nothing to do with FEDERALLY mandated health insurance to begin with. Your whole scenario is nonsense as a result. Jesus...don't you get tired of that stupid auto insurance analogy? You have to have a minimum amount of auto insurance...liability insurance to be exact. Why? It isn't for the insured's protection is for the protection of the person he collides with. You have to carry workers compensation insurance. Why? It isn't for the employer's protection it is for the medical coverage of the employee who gets injured on the job. We mandate that people buy insurance to protect their victims....not themselves. The libs say, "health insurance is a right because it protects your life!" OR "because it deals with your health!" Well...clothing really protects your health a lot more directly and immediately than a doctor so shouldn't clothing be free??? Food be free??? How far can that logic be extended? This gets back to my point that liberals would not expend enough energy to feed themselves if they didn't have to.

Arturas -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 3:40:10 PM)
quote: My point is that everyone is crying about how free health care will be given... when that isnt the case. A valid argument might be better received] quote: Under those guidelines, I wouldn't be given "free" insurance. I make too much money. Anyone making minimum wage and working full time wouldn't be eligible for "free". What percentage of the cost would you be required to pay, 100 percent?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 3:45:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity [...The majority of the panel said they couldn’t uphold the mandate because there would be no limit to Congress’s powers if they did. Opponents of the law have frequently argued that if Congress can require people to buy insurance, they can force people to do anything else, such as buy broccoli or a gym membership for their health benefits. they already do. they force people to pay property taxes FOR SERVICES! any wonder why our laws are so fucked up? Uhhhh no they dont.

Lucylastic -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 3:47:55 PM)
yep four responses later and not a decent explanation anywhere, LMAO See what I mean?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 3:47:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway Jesus...don't you get tired of that stupid auto insurance analogy? When you dont have a good argument, reach for any argument! One has nothing to do with the other, period.

lockedaway -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 3:53:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway Jesus...don't you get tired of that stupid auto insurance analogy? When you dont have a good argument, reach for any argument! One has nothing to do with the other, period. I know...it is pathetic. It is a service LIKE ANY OTHER service. If there should be a preference to that service to make it more accessible, that's fine, but it should come in the form of tax credits for the service providers, in my opinion. You certainly don't impose a massive tax increase that limits innumerable liberties and imposes duties on Americans to pay for a service for other Americans. Not to mention, an adequate reform of health care also means addressing the illegal alien population in this country and the decline of manufacturing and private sector jobs.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 3:57:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway Jesus...don't you get tired of that stupid auto insurance analogy? When you dont have a good argument, reach for any argument! One has nothing to do with the other, period. I know...it is pathetic. It is a service LIKE ANY OTHER service. If there should be a preference to that service to make it more accessible, that's fine, but it should come in the form of tax credits for the service providers, in my opinion. You certainly don't impose a massive tax increase that limits innumerable liberties and imposes duties on Americans to pay for a service for other Americans. Not to mention, an adequate reform of health care also means addressing the illegal alien population in this country and the decline of manufacturing and private sector jobs. I think this is the first decision that explicitly recognizes that the mandate was only there so healthy individuals would be required to subsidize the unhealthy, which goes beyond the mandate itself, but to its purpose. Not that SCOTUS would have missed it, but it makes overturning their ruling a bit more difficult.

lockedaway -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 3:59:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: lockedaway Jesus...don't you get tired of that stupid auto insurance analogy? When you dont have a good argument, reach for any argument! One has nothing to do with the other, period. I know...it is pathetic. It is a service LIKE ANY OTHER service. If there should be a preference to that service to make it more accessible, that's fine, but it should come in the form of tax credits for the service providers, in my opinion. You certainly don't impose a massive tax increase that limits innumerable liberties and imposes duties on Americans to pay for a service for other Americans. Not to mention, an adequate reform of health care also means addressing the illegal alien population in this country and the decline of manufacturing and private sector jobs. I think this is the first decision that explicitly recognizes that the mandate was only there so healthy individuals would be required to subsidize the unhealthy, which goes beyond the mandate itself, but to its purpose. Not that SCOTUS would have missed it, but it makes overturning their ruling a bit more difficult. I agree with you.

Owner59 -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 5:57:17 PM)
We pay for services for others, now. In the form of reimbursements, from states to hospitals/clinics. That is tax-payers money,btw,going for folks who use services and can`t pay. Unless you`re going to turn broke people away from the ER,those costs are going to be incurred. Unless you`re going to let hospitals close,those incurred costs have to be payed. And no one`s going to lose any liberty,much less,LOL "innumerable liberties" LOL,......what a line of bullshit there. Those scare tactics are from and for the frightened and un-informed.

tazzygirl -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 6:50:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: My point is that everyone is crying about how free health care will be given... when that isnt the case. A valid argument might be better received] quote: Under those guidelines, I wouldn't be given "free" insurance. I make too much money. Anyone making minimum wage and working full time wouldn't be eligible for "free". What percentage of the cost would you be required to pay, 100 percent? I posted the link. What percentage of cost are you required to pay?

tazzygirl -> RE: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law (8/13/2011 6:53:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 We pay for services for others, now. In the form of reimbursements, from states to hospitals/clinics. That is tax-payers money,btw,going for folks who use services and can`t pay. Unless you`re going to turn broke people away from the ER,those costs are going to be incurred. Unless you`re going to let hospitals close,those incurred costs have to be payed. And no one`s going to lose any liberty,much less,LOL "innumerable liberties" LOL,......what a line of bullshit there. Those scare tactics are from and for the frightened and un-informed. One of the few way costs can be contained is to close the ER doors.... as many have done.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125