RE: Constitutionality of ACA (Full Version)

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



Message


Moonhead -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 9:07:37 AM)

I'd imagine why they're coming out with all of this absurd blather about the constitution rather than finding other objects to the programme: whatever else they are, they don't want to look like they're less in favour of any branch of business than the Democrats are...




xssve -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 9:30:45 AM)

It always has to be cast as this heroic struggle between good and evil for them, and as a result political theater has largely crowded out sensible policy discussion, on almost any level - Romney and Sanatorium are both effectively incapable of discussing policy in a rational way without alienating the religious right or the Chicken Little right wing conspiracy nuts who go completely spastic at any hint of a move to the center.




Arturas -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 9:35:49 AM)

quote:

Um, Obamacare is supported by income taxes on people who don't pay (directly or indirectly) for health insurance.


No. Pelosi specifcally put in the Obamacare law that this mandate is not to be known or described as a TAX. Instead, it is something you are required to buy from a private insurance company or pay the Goverment, as an insurance premium, to the Government run insurance entity. Everyone. Working or not. Must buy insurance. Not a tax. The Obamacare mandate is labeled in the law as something other than tax. The Supreme Court ruled Monday a week ago that it was indeed NOT A TAX.

Are you listening? Reality knocks.




Arturas -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 9:38:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

It always has to be cast as this heroic struggle between good and evil for them, and as a result political theater has largely crowded out sensible policy discussion, on almost any level - Romney and Sanatorium are both effectively incapable of discussing policy in a rational way without alienating the religious right or the Chicken Little right wing conspiracy nuts who go completely spastic at any hint of a move to the center.


Interesting opinion. I suppose it is to provide a balance to the extreme left of the current administration where simply going to the center would be less effective. Yes.




Arturas -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 9:44:14 AM)

quote:

A supreme court ruling that threatened Medicare (and I'd be tempted to file suit to get out of paying that tax just for the political points) would end the Republican party...


Interesting opinion. Why? Is this because Obamacare being ruled illegal will end the Democratic Party Left and so somehow if the Supreme Court decided to kill Medcare then the same would happen to the Republicans?

I think not. But, it will leave the left less powerful. Starting January 20, 2013.
Don't you think the coming lack of real money to pay for entitlements the Left depends on to keep power will surely make them irrelavent.




DomKen -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 9:44:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas


quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

It always has to be cast as this heroic struggle between good and evil for them, and as a result political theater has largely crowded out sensible policy discussion, on almost any level - Romney and Sanatorium are both effectively incapable of discussing policy in a rational way without alienating the religious right or the Chicken Little right wing conspiracy nuts who go completely spastic at any hint of a move to the center.


Interesting opinion. I suppose it is to provide a balance to the extreme left of the current administration where simply going to the center would be less effective. Yes.

Bullshit. The Obama administration is centrist. Based on its poicies slightly right of center. Cap and Trade - right wing idea. Individual mandate - right wing idea.

Extreme leftist policies would be stuff like nationalizing health care, nationalizing the financial industry and gutting the defence budget to pay for investment in the US.




SoftBonds -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 9:48:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

Um, Obamacare is supported by income taxes on people who don't pay (directly or indirectly) for health insurance.


No. Pelosi specifcally put in the Obamacare law that this mandate is not to be known or described as a TAX. Instead, it is something you are required to buy from a private insurance company or pay the Goverment, as an insurance premium, to the Government run insurance entity. Everyone. Working or not. Must buy insurance. Not a tax. The Obamacare mandate is labeled in the law as something other than tax. The Supreme Court ruled Monday a week ago that it was indeed NOT A TAX.

Are you listening? Reality knocks.


Oh, so it is like the republican proposal in the Ryan budget to change Medicare, sorry for my confusion...




xssve -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 9:49:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas


quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

It always has to be cast as this heroic struggle between good and evil for them, and as a result political theater has largely crowded out sensible policy discussion, on almost any level - Romney and Sanatorium are both effectively incapable of discussing policy in a rational way without alienating the religious right or the Chicken Little right wing conspiracy nuts who go completely spastic at any hint of a move to the center.


Interesting opinion. I suppose it is to provide a balance to the extreme left of the current administration where simply going to the center would be less effective. Yes.

Bullshit. The Obama administration is centrist. Based on its poicies slightly right of center. Cap and Trade - right wing idea. Individual mandate - right wing idea.

Extreme leftist policies would be stuff like nationalizing health care, nationalizing the financial industry and gutting the defence budget to pay for investment in the US.

Speak of the devil... [:D]




SoftBonds -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 9:54:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Bullshit. The Obama administration is centrist. Based on its poicies slightly right of center. Cap and Trade - right wing idea. Individual mandate - right wing idea.

Extreme leftist policies would be stuff like nationalizing health care, nationalizing the financial industry and gutting the defence budget to pay for investment in the US.

Speak of the devil... [:D]


Now now, the Republican led plan to cut the deficit is going to trim the military, but only to help pay for the Bush tax cuts and Bush wars...
And while 600 billion sounds like a lot, it is over 10 years, which means it is about 10%... less if you look at the supplemental expenditures.




Arturas -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 10:06:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

There is not enough money in the world to cover everyone that cannot or will not buy insurance.


Amended because it should have read as follows....

There is not enough money in the world to cover everyone that cannot or will not buy insurance and still line the pockets of the CEOs and stockholders.


Do you feel insurance companies should not make money for their management and their stockholders?

You know, I think your statement is not so close to reality. You see, many insurance companies are mutual insurance companies because every premium paying insured owns a piece of the company. I also know that 60 percent of all 500 employee or greater companies have "self insured" plans in which the employees insure themselves and share in the profits and losses. I think this is not so bad, not so much as you describe it, in fact, I think it is great.

It also leads one to realize that if this large bulk of insurance companies are not making a lot of money for the employee/owners then it makes sense to say that there would not be enough money to insure everyone simply by removing the profits of insurance companies. Now, I do understand that there are other insurance plans that are not mutual owned or self insured and they are indeed making large profits for their stakeholders but that tends to differ by year and circumstance and cannot be depended on to pay for those who cannot pay for healthcare.

Now, it seems to me many posts here are pro-healthcare plan rather than pro-mandate because much of the discussion is about healthcare and many may think Obamacare is all there is. It is not, thank goodness, because Obamacare is history. But, all is not lost because I assure you Congress will replace Obamacare with one that will work and not require even the poorest to pay for insurance and it will not take ten thousand pages of law to do. It will lower insurance costs dramatically by increasing competition for private insurance companies so they must lower their premiums to survive, it will also requre healh costs to dramatically decrease by making the delivery of healthcare more efficient and less expensive while not lowering healthcare standards. These key steps will then allow most to affort reasonable insurance premiums and also allow for a safety net and key healthcare needs (especially for children and the elderly) for those who simply have nothing except the shirts on their back and a little food for their kids.





Arturas -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 10:18:15 AM)

quote:

Oh, so it is like the republican proposal in the Ryan budget to change Medicare


How so?




mnottertail -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 10:20:18 AM)

Do you feel insurance companies should not make money for their management and their stockholders?

Why do you ask such pathetic strawmen?

Do you feel that a robber shouldn't make a profit?





Musicmystery -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 10:35:17 AM)

quote:

It's because we are broke, we are very broke and we will be broke for a long time.


Hardly. U.S. assets top $188 trillion.




farglebargle -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 11:03:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas


Do you feel insurance companies should not make money for their management and their stockholders?


I don't believe the delivery of necessary services should be profitized. Insurance companies don't do anything except add layers of inefficiency to healthcare delivery.




Moonhead -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 11:12:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
Do you feel insurance companies should not make money for their management and their stockholders?

Not if it's a choice between their profit margins and providing their customers with the service that they're paying for, no.




Lucylastic -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 11:18:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
Do you feel insurance companies should not make money for their management and their stockholders?

Not if it's a choice between their profit margins and providing their customers with the service that they're paying for, no.

perzackerly!!!




tazzygirl -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 11:47:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

Um, Obamacare is supported by income taxes on people who don't pay (directly or indirectly) for health insurance.


No. Pelosi specifcally put in the Obamacare law that this mandate is not to be known or described as a TAX. Instead, it is something you are required to buy from a private insurance company or pay the Goverment, as an insurance premium, to the Government run insurance entity. Everyone. Working or not. Must buy insurance. Not a tax. The Obamacare mandate is labeled in the law as something other than tax. The Supreme Court ruled Monday a week ago that it was indeed NOT A TAX.

Are you listening? Reality knocks.


Oh, so it is like the republican proposal in the Ryan budget to change Medicare, sorry for my confusion...


As the argument circled around whether the individual mandate is a tax or some kind of penalty, the Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. appeared at one point to become tripped up in his words, saying tax when he meant penalty and, elsewhere, calling it a “tax penalty.”

Justice Kagan asked Mr. Verrilli whether a person who violated the individual mandate — and paid the penalty under the health care law — would be considered to have violated a federal law. He said no, explaining that paying the penalty would not be the same as failing to pay a tax.

That answer brought a fast back-and-forth between Mr. Verrilli and Justices Kagan and Breyer:

JUSTICE KAGAN: The nature of the representation you made, that the only consequence is the penalty, suppose a person does not purchase insurance, a person who is obligated to do so under the statute doesn’t do it, pays the penalty instead, and that person finds herself in a position where she is asked the question, have you ever violated any federal law, would that person have violated a federal law?

GENERAL VERRILLI: No. Our position is that person should give the answer “no.”

JUSTICE KAGAN: And that’s because -­

GENERAL VERRILLI: That if they don’t pay the tax, they violated a federal law.

JUSTICE KAGAN: But as long as they pay the penalty -­-

GENERAL VERRILLI: If they pay the tax, then they are in compliance with the law.

JUSTICE BREYER: Why do you keep saying tax?

GENERAL VERRILLI: If they pay the tax penalty, they’re in compliance with the law.

JUSTICE BREYER: Thank you.

GENERAL VERRILLI: Thank you, Justice Breyer.

JUSTICE BREYER: The penalty.

GENERAL VERRILLI: Right. That’s right.
The Lede is signing off for the day, but we will return on Tuesday to continue following the hearings. Thanks for your comments.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/updates-on-the-supreme-court-challenge-to-the-health-care-law/




tazzygirl -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 11:51:34 AM)

quote:

Do you feel insurance companies should not make money for their management and their stockholders?


Certainly they should. They should not be able to do so by holding the keys to both doors. Insurance premiums and the ability to decline, as well as costs by having their hands deep into the cookie jar. Insurance companies have their hands in almost every aspect of health care now, and not just as policy providers.




mnottertail -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 12:25:37 PM)

the thing about the tax or the penalty bit is going to be some fancy dancing to drop off.

If you do not pay taxes on time, a penalty is always accessed. 





tazzygirl -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 12:48:01 PM)

Very true. I wonder what the significance of having to admit you violated a federal law would be.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.699707E-02