• 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]

ludin said:
you present your opinion which is well not facts.



this is incorrect. while there were some people that might have had lifetime caps on their insurance they were a minority.

.
Click to expand...

Nope. Most states had lifetime caps, including CA and TX. I don't have the numbers, but I'm sure it was a majority of plans with lifetime caps. This reference cites a number of 102 million.
http://ccf.georgetown.edu/all/affor...mits-has-ended-martin-addies-coverage-circus/

I saw quite a few cases like this, where a family had lost everything to fight an illness, often one that ended in a death.

That's called a fact, not an opinion.

And you did not give us a fact, you just pulled a guess out of your nether regions.
 
Last edited:

you don't seem to get it. there were 2 provisions in the bill. 1 that was setup for the state and the other that was setup for the federal government.
the part that references the subsidies does not mention anything about federal based exchanges. it is plain and clear. it is not ambiguous or anything else.

when this was realized because no one read the bloody bill the IRS took it on themselves to change the bill (unconstitutional) the IRS does not have the power to change law.

the next issue is that HHS is not a state nor does it have the authority to act as a state or represent a state. the SCOTUS GOT IT WRONG.
they ignored past precedent and ignored the law and the constitution. the HHS and the federal government now has the ability to be a state something that
would have the founding fathers rolling in their grave. just like when this SCOTUS upheld that the government can now force you to buy a product as long as they tax you.

don't want to buy a chevy? to bad you get to otherwise the federal government can issue a tax against you if you don't and it is legal.

this is the problem that these guys get themselves into when they rule based on their political ideology instead of the constitution like they are supposed to.

there is no consistency. the federal government and the HHS is not a state nor do they have the constitutional authority to represent the state but now they do.
thanks to this unconstitutional decision by the SCOTUS.

I saw these legal arguments made in the case docs when the case was submitted, and apparently these arguments prevailed, or the decision would not have been for the ACA.
Click to expand...

it had nothing to do with the law or the constitution it was 100% political which is why this SCOTUS should be removed from the bench.


I could careless what they ruled what part about that don't you get? THEY WERE WRONG in their ruling.
you seem to not care and just want to pander.

they passed it based on politics not the rule of law or the constitution.
 
ludin said:
you don't seem to get it. there were 2 provisions in the bill. 1 that was setup for the state and the other that was setup for the federal government.
Click to expand...

And the law makes it clear that when we're talking about state-based exchanges we're also talking about the federal exchange. Because a federal exchange established in lieu of a state exchange is "such exchange" (i.e., is the state-based exchange) for all intents and purposes of the law.

Per SCOTUS:
 
Not pandering here at all.

I've seen your argument - let me take a look at theirs, and I'll see better where these arguments stand & get back to you in a bit with a more detailed opinion.

(I've been needing to read it)

Fair enough?
 
Chomsky said:
Not pandering here at all.

I've seen your argument - let me take a look at theirs, and I'll see better where these arguments stand & get back to you in a bit with a more detailed opinion.

(I've been needing to read it)

Fair enough?
Click to expand...

You need to read the dissent as well. Roberts is just protecting his screw up from the 1st ruling on the individual mandate.
 

The little charity I work with has about 70 uninsured men. My brother is an ER doc. So I have a decent understanding on both ends what the poor can and cannot do and how they get healthcare. And what I know without any doubt is the way you describe our system and how the poor access it is completely ignorant.

Yes, lots of uninsured go to the ER for routine care, because that is their only real option. And free clinics do great work and I admire all the medical providers who participate in them. But what you're doing is concluding that because these things exist and some people manage to get care through them that they are even approaching an adequate solution for the vast majority of the uninsured. Those things just are not adequate, and every person who looks at the problem knows this without the slightest doubt. I'd tell you stories about the people I know pretty well and the problems they have accessing long term care for their chronic conditions, but if you don't already know this it's a waste of time because you don't want to really look into it.

The bottom line is the fact that we need Remote Area Medical Volunteer Corp in the U.S. is testimony to your misunderstanding.

Hidden Hurt: Desperate for medical care, the uninsured flock by the hundreds to a remote corner of Virginia for the chance to see a doctor

 

So then like most liberals this is about your perception and not about you. I could never ever hit my lifetime cap nor could you. My deductible was lower and thank God I don't have to purchase ACA but then the issue remains, why do you expect someone else to pay for the health insurance premiums of others?
 

Really? You know you could never hit your lifetime cap?

Are you psychic?

Luckily for us all, we don't have to pretend we are psychic anymore. The ACA covers us all. Thanks, Obama!

And again, you got ACA compliant insurance, and the ACA is involved at a very basic level on the type of care you get, how it will be delivered, and how it will be improved.

And you remain ungrateful, and willfully ignorant.
 

And of course that isn't something you do. I am sure that you followed the law in TX about illegality of same sex marriage and abortion. I honestly believe Obamacare is going to further bankrupt this country, was a very poorly crafted law like most liberal laws that affect social issues. You see, you continue to think with your heart instead of your brain as well as judge everyone else by your own standards and beliefs.
 

Keep dodging the issue, why is it the taxpayers responsibility to pay for your personal healthcare issues? Seems that the problem is the way far too many were raised still expecting that entitlement mentality where someone else always pays for what you want. In the liberal world results don't matter because feelings trump them.
 

Well, no. YOU keep dodging issues, like how you mysteriously know what diseases you'll get in the future.

And taxpayers have been paying for our healthcare for our entire lives- employer paid health care has always been tax exempt, and a way to pay employees with less tax outlays. You just pretend it's not a fact.
 

Obama didn't say when everyone would be covered...just that they would. And the premiums were skyrocketing before Obamacare. But now the ACA can put a cap on the insurance rates to slow them down. I think what might be happening now are the insurance companies are raising rates before that portion of the law kicks in. But I'm just guessing.


No self respecting Republican would be caught dead praising Obamacare, but they don't seem to have a problem with the ACA.


Poll: Republicans hate ‘Obamacare,’ but like most of what it does - The Washington Post
 

You keep dodging the more relative question as to why it is my responsibility to pay for your healthcare insurance?? Like far too many you never want to accept personal responsibility but rather have someone else pay for your premiums with their FIT.
 
Conservative said:
You keep dodging the more relative question as to why it is my responsibility to pay for your healthcare insurance?? Like far too many you never want to accept personal responsibility but rather have someone else pay for your premiums with their FIT.
Click to expand...

You're not paying my healthcare insurance.

Of course, when you get old, I'll be gladly paying yours, because there is no reasonable market based solution to have the elderly cover their own insurance at reasonable rates. You are welcome, BTW.
 
Threegoofs said:
You're not paying my healthcare insurance.

Of course, when you get old, I'll be gladly paying yours, because there is no reasonable market based solution to have the elderly cover their own insurance at reasonable rates. You are welcome, BTW.
Click to expand...

That isn't your responsibility it is mine. You don't seem to understand the concept. When I say yours the context is supporters of ACA. Medicare was a self funded program until "your" Party put it on budget and spent that money. There would have been no need for you to pay for my health insurance until your party created a Ponzi scheme.
 

The Wash. Post is anti conservative. They love 0bama's policies.
 
Red Crow said:
The Wash. Post is anti conservative. They love 0bama's policies.
Click to expand...

Really, because I thought they were more right leaning after they supported GWBush's policy to invade Iraq.

"...On March 26, 2007, Chris Matthews said on his television program, "Well, The Washington Post is not the liberal newspaper it was, Congressman, let me tell you. I have been reading it for years and it is a neocon newspaper".[57] It has regularly published an ideological mixture of op-ed columnists, some of them left-leaning (including E.J. Dionne, Greg Sargent, and Eugene Robinson), and many on the right (including George Will, Marc Thiessen, Robert Kagan, Robert Samuelson, Michael Gerson and Charles Krauthammer).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Washington_Post#Political_stance

But then, that doesn't have anything to do with what we were discussing, does it?
 


Let me see... Obama + Bush = Liberals.



Bush was not a TRUE conservative, he ran as a conservative in name only, just like Bernie Sanders, he is not an Independent he is a Socialists.
 
Last edited:

And the GOP has been completely powerless to change that?

Poor guys.
 
Red Crow said:
Let me see... Obama + Bush = Liberals.



Bush was not a TRUE conservative, he ran as a conservative in name only, just like Bernie Sanders, he is not an Independent he is a Socialists.
Click to expand...

Revisonist history or just your opinion?
 
Moot said:
Revisonist history or just your opinion?
Click to expand...

Looks like a fact to me regarding Sanders

Bernie Sanders emerges as top Hillary Clinton challenger as liberal agenda resonates - Washington Times



Also regarding Bush is it fact or fiction that a Democrat Controlled Senate with major control of the Senate Oversight and intelligence Committee authorized the Iraq War based upon the same information that Bush had?
 
Threegoofs said:
And the GOP has been completely powerless to change that?

Poor guys.
Click to expand...

With socialists in control of the Democrat Party, highly unlikely. What is sad is how you run from the question posed because you really do know the answer
 
Joe Steel said:
And the peace mind coming from knowing you have access to health care if something really bad happens to you.
Click to expand...

Funny. The deductible I got is 1000, and I have a max out of payment for the year to be 6K.

That means, any medical expenses over 6K for the entire year, gets paid for 100%


Friend of mine had a heart attack last year. His hospital bills were way more than that. Because of that, he did not become bankrupt.
 
Conservative said:
With socialists in control of the Democrat Party, highly unlikely. What is sad is how you run from the question posed because you really do know the answer
Click to expand...

Not really. Remember all those points you got crushed on and promptly ignored earlier?

Healthcare is a common good. I benefit from you having good health, and vice versa. It is common sense that we set up an appropriate mechanism to ensure we have optimal health which leads to optimal productivity.

I'm not in the 1%....but probably in the 5% and possibly in the 2%, and I owe my success to the hundreds of healthy people who are productive and can funnel their money to me eventually, rather than being ill.

The difference between you and me is that I understand that, while you are bound and determined to stay willfully ignorant of that fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…