RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business?

RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (Full Version)

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

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 7:20:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The problem with Romney is we truly don't know who he is. He passed an Insurance Mandate in MASS and walked away from it. He said he'd veto the Dream Act during the primaries and announced he'd pass is during the debates. He'll say or do anything to become President. As President, Romney's most important job is the selection of his staff. Will he put the fox in charge of the hen house? For his agenda, will he repeal Wall Street Regulation? Will he dismantle the Consumer Protection Division? Will he appoint a Supreme Court Justice that will overturn Roe v. Wade? Will he be able to negotiate with IRAN? Will he defund Planned Parenthood? Would he raise taxes to help balance the budget? Nobody knows. How is he different than the failed policies and choices of the BUSH Administration that grew government, mismanaged two wars, had the Katrina fiasco, and led the economy over a cliff? What will he do if Congress won't pass his legislation? Did you have that same apprehension 4 years ago?

Aylee -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 7:25:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Unfortunately, "civil" left the discourse game in politics, a long time ago. It has become fear-mongering and half truths; anything to gain power. Two quick thoughts: (a) At the risk of sounding like a broken record (is there an MP3-era equivalent of that simile?), American politics have always been less civil than we like to imagine. Adams's and Jefferson's partisans said and wrote stuff that would make Rahm Emmanuel blush. (b) Fear-mongering and half-truths are bipartisan activities, alas. Not civil as in "polite." civ·il adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or consisting of citizens: civil life; civil society. 2. of the commonwealth or state: civil affairs. 3. of citizens in their ordinary capacity, or of the ordinary life and affairs of citizens, as distinguished from military and ecclesiastical life and affairs. 4. of the citizen as an individual: civil liberty. 5. befitting a citizen: a civil duty.

dcnovice -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 7:45:54 PM)
quote: However, there are things that have been left up to the States or the People that are not within the authorities given to the Federal Government. You can acknowledge that basic truth, right (and, I'm not specifically talking about healthcare, health insurance, etc.; simply a general statement)? I get that that's a key tenet of yours, but I'm not sure everyone in America agrees. If the Affordable Care Act lies outside the purview of the federal government, why didn't the Supreme Court (which has a conservative majority) strike it down?

dcnovice -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 7:48:42 PM)
quote: Not civil as in "polite." I read Michael as using it in the "polite" sense, hence my reply. Ymmv.

dcnovice -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 7:59:23 PM)
quote: The no part. State versus federal. He imposed Romneycare at the state level. Which means that it only affects citizens of the state of Massachusettes. Obamacare is at the federal level. Which means that it affects EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN. Well, yes, covering "EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN" (sic.) would seem to be part of a universal healthcare law. quote: Each state should be free to develop their own plan. For example, the needs of rural Kansas are not the same needs as Connecticut. The states had forever to develop their own plans, and the result was millions of uninsured Americans. (See also: slavery, civil rights, education.) Given that Theodore Roosevelt first raised the issue of universal health coverage in 1912, it's not like the U.S. exactly rushed into this.

subrob1967 -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 8:17:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: However, there are things that have been left up to the States or the People that are not within the authorities given to the Federal Government. You can acknowledge that basic truth, right (and, I'm not specifically talking about healthcare, health insurance, etc.; simply a general statement)? I get that that's a key tenet of yours, but I'm not sure everyone in America agrees. If the Affordable Care Act lies outside the purview of the federal government, why didn't the Supreme Court (which has a conservative majority) strike it down? Because the government has the right to impose taxes, and Obamacare is a tax.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 8:37:12 PM)
Since it's a tax, why not cut out the middle man (insurance companies)? I think a big reason people don't like the Affordable Care Act is hatred of for profit health insurance companies and the idea of being mandated to pay them. Health insurance companies have earned that hatred by refusing to pay claims resulting in people dying. I support the Affordable Care Act because I think given time, it will lead to a single-payer system.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 8:38:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: However, there are things that have been left up to the States or the People that are not within the authorities given to the Federal Government. You can acknowledge that basic truth, right (and, I'm not specifically talking about healthcare, health insurance, etc.; simply a general statement)? I get that that's a key tenet of yours, but I'm not sure everyone in America agrees. If the Affordable Care Act lies outside the purview of the federal government, why didn't the Supreme Court (which has a conservative majority) strike it down? Because the government has the right to impose taxes, and Obamacare is a tax. Is the requirement that you carry auto insurance a tax?

dcnovice -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 8:50:49 PM)
quote: Because the government has the right to impose taxes, and Obamacare is a tax. That was the Chief Justice's (somewhat tortured) reasoning for upholding the individual mandate, I believe. But DS was making a much broader point, that "there are things that have been left up to the States or the People that are not within the authorities given to the Federal Government." That seemed to me to raise the question of whether healthcare was among those "things." I'm inclined to think it's not, given (a) the longevity of Medicare and Medicaid and (b) the Supreme Court's decision not to strike down the entire ACA on the grounds that it was usurping state powers. With a conservative majority, the court could easily have done so.

TheHeretic -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 8:51:42 PM)
Really, Hillwilliam? Really? We've been going over this monstrosity inflicted on the American middle class for three years now, and you are still stuck on talking points that were taken down in the first week. Really? Perhaps you missed it, but the only reason the mandate squeaked through the Supreme Court was because they decided it was a tax. Go ahead and send Chief Justice Roberts a nasty email if you like, but cut the bullshit

Aylee -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 9:13:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: However, there are things that have been left up to the States or the People that are not within the authorities given to the Federal Government. You can acknowledge that basic truth, right (and, I'm not specifically talking about healthcare, health insurance, etc.; simply a general statement)? I get that that's a key tenet of yours, but I'm not sure everyone in America agrees. If the Affordable Care Act lies outside the purview of the federal government, why didn't the Supreme Court (which has a conservative majority) strike it down? Because the government has the right to impose taxes, and Obamacare is a tax. Is the requirement that you carry auto insurance a tax? Nope. Because you can get by without a car. In some areas. You can avoid payroll taxes by not being employed. You can avoid phone taxes by not having a phone. You can avoid the taxes on electricity by being off the grid. You cannot avoid Obamacare. Furthermore, with auto insurance there is a state minimum required. Not a federal minimum required.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 9:17:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Really, Hillwilliam? Really? We've been going over this monstrosity inflicted on the American middle class for three years now, and you are still stuck on talking points that were taken down in the first week. Really? Perhaps you missed it, but the only reason the mandate squeaked through the Supreme Court was because they decided it was a tax. Go ahead and send Chief Justice Roberts a nasty email if you like, but cut the bullshit Ive been asking it since the first week and noone has come up with squat. All they can give is Rush's platitudes. Why is it that those on the Right think I should have to pay for the medical care of others who are capable of doing it on their own? They dont have insurance, they get sick, they go to the ER. they pay nothing. As a result, I pay more in insurance premiums because the hospital bills those of us who do have insurance much more than they would otherwise. What kind of fucking SOCIALIST approves of that? If someone can pay their own way, they should HAVE to instead of me and you paying out of our pockets for their entitlements. What kind of leftist thinks people should get a free ride if they're capable of paying?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 9:19:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee Nope. Because you can get by without a car. In some areas. You can avoid payroll taxes by not being employed. You can avoid phone taxes by not having a phone. You can avoid the taxes on electricity by being off the grid. You cannot avoid Obamacare. Furthermore, with auto insurance there is a state minimum required. Not a federal minimum required. You mean all those good Republicans who sit on their ass at home unemployed waiting for their monthly benefit check while listening to Rush on the radio telling them why their lazy ass isn't able to get a job because all the illegals took the work? Our trailer parks are full of them.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 9:29:02 PM)
"Republicans on welfare" is a little bit like saying: "Democrat pro-lifer"

defiantbadgirl -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 9:38:41 PM)
I've looked into businessman Romney's idea on what to replace the Affordable Care Act with. His idea of dealing with pre-existing conditions is people maintaining continuous coverage and maybe giving them a few more opportunities to purchase health insurance. He has no intention of making pre-existing condition clauses illegal. Making sure people can maintain coverage when switching jobs isn't enough. What happens when companies close or positions are eliminated? Since competition in the "global economy" has driven down wages, many people don't make enough to be able to save. With no savings, how can the unemployed afford to maintain health insurance? At least with Medicaid expansion, people with no income may be eligible for Medicaid until they find employment. In Romney's plan there is no Medicaid expansion. He also doesn't plan to make lifetime limits illegal. Cancer is a leading killer in the US and very expensive to treat. Once the limit is reached, the person becomes uninsured and uninsurable anywhere else. Many people get cancer long before they're old enough to be eligible for Medicare.

TheHeretic -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 9:57:11 PM)
Hillwilliam, if somebody can show me a plan that addresses the inherent problems, I'd be in for a basic care entitlement, and nationalizing healthcare (though I think single payer is just fucking stupid). I keep asking too, and mostly I get accused of wanting people to die. Funny thing. Auto insurance is mandated in California, but there is hardly a sane person on the road who doesn't pay the extra for uninsured motorist coverage. Sucks, don't it?

FMRFGOPGAL -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 10:54:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The problem with Romney is we truly don't know who he is. He passed an Insurance Mandate in MASS and walked away from it. He said he'd veto the Dream Act during the primaries and announced he'd pass is during the debates. He'll say or do anything to become President. As President, Romney's most important job is the selection of his staff. Will he put the fox in charge of the hen house? For his agenda, will he repeal Wall Street Regulation? Will he dismantle the Consumer Protection Division? Will he appoint a Supreme Court Justice that will overturn Roe v. Wade? Will he be able to negotiate with IRAN? Will he defund Planned Parenthood? Would he raise taxes to help balance the budget? Nobody knows. How is he different than the failed policies and choices of the BUSH Administration that grew government, mismanaged two wars, had the Katrina fiasco, and led the economy over a cliff? What will he do if Congress won't pass his legislation? Did you have that same apprehension 4 years ago? I did ... and it's getting worse by the minute... quick question... Why is it all you 'knowledgeable people don't ever discuss his utterly ineffectual relationship with the legislature. What I see discussed here most of the time is as if you people think he was in fact effective. He had a BIZARRE term as Governor... and it may even break some record for things like overturned vetoes, for instance. All this discussion of how much better he'll be than Obama simply serve to obviate the fact that people outside of Massachusetts have no clue what went on there.

subrob1967 -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 11:06:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Is the requirement that you carry auto insurance a tax? You don't need to carry auto insurance.

subrob1967 -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/21/2012 11:10:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Really, Hillwilliam? Really? We've been going over this monstrosity inflicted on the American middle class for three years now, and you are still stuck on talking points that were taken down in the first week. Really? Perhaps you missed it, but the only reason the mandate squeaked through the Supreme Court was because they decided it was a tax. Go ahead and send Chief Justice Roberts a nasty email if you like, but cut the bullshit Ive been asking it since the first week and noone has come up with squat. All they can give is Rush's platitudes. Why is it that those on the Right think I should have to pay for the medical care of others who are capable of doing it on their own? They dont have insurance, they get sick, they go to the ER. they pay nothing. As a result, I pay more in insurance premiums because the hospital bills those of us who do have insurance much more than they would otherwise. What kind of fucking SOCIALIST approves of that? If someone can pay their own way, they should HAVE to instead of me and you paying out of our pockets for their entitlements. What kind of leftist thinks people should get a free ride if they're capable of paying? Who pays nothing? Have any proof that people pay nothing? If so many people paid nothing, why are there so many fucking bankruptcies due to medical bills if only the people with insurance had to pay for medical care? You can easily avoid the higher premiums, and paying for others by dropping your insurance plan and paying out of pocket for your medical care.

tazzygirl -> RE: Is a Businessman President Good for Business? (10/22/2012 1:20:37 AM)
quote: You can easily avoid the higher premiums, and paying for others by dropping your insurance plan and paying out of pocket for your medical care. And you are still paying for others via higher bills. As far as proof about unpaid medical bills? Some 30 million Americans were contacted by collection agencies in 2010 regarding unpaid medical bills, according to research by the Commonwealth Fund. And previous research from the Federal Reserve found that more than half of all collection accounts on credit reports are related to medical bills. http://money.msn.com/health-and-life-insurance/4-costly-medical-bill-myths-credit.aspx Brown "doesn't have insurance. She doesn't want to pay for it. And she doesn't want the government to tell her she has to have it," said Karen Harned, a lawyer for the National Federation of Independent Business. Brown is a plaintiff in the federation's case, which the Supreme Court plans to hear later this month. But court records reveal that Brown and her husband filed for bankruptcy last fall with $4,500 in unpaid medical bills. Those bills could change Brown from a symbol of proud independence into an example of exactly the problem the healthcare law was intended to address. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/08/nation/la-na-healthcare-plaintiff-20120309

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875