|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jun 28, 2012 14:06:50 GMT -5
I just hope the Republicans grab this as a huge, regressive tax on the poor (which it is) and run with it. I hate them as much as the Democrats, but if getting them in office is what it takes to overturn something like this, I'm onboard.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jun 28, 2012 14:13:37 GMT -5
If the Republicans get in office, they'll just pass some other ridiculous bullcrap.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jun 28, 2012 14:13:39 GMT -5
I just hope the Republicans grab this as a huge, regressive tax on the poor (which it is) and run with it. I hate them as much as the Democrats, but if getting them in office is what it takes to overturn something like this, I'm onboard. I think it could help Romney. He can now say "If you want this law repealed voting for me is the only way," and I'm sure it'll get a lot of people on board.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jun 28, 2012 14:15:30 GMT -5
IF YOU WANT TO REPEAL OBAMACARE, VOTE FOR THE GUY WHO CREATED IT -- MITT ROMNEY this country is intellectually- disabled.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jun 28, 2012 14:27:33 GMT -5
What is the difference in forcing someone to buy health insurance, versus forcing them to buy a Chevrolet vehicle? Many people need extensive healthcare treatment to survive. No one needs a Chevrolet to survive. I can see the point of view of your side, and even see how the Constitution might support your argument, but in my opinion healthcare should be written in an amendment as essential. You're missing what I'm saying, though... I'm asking what the difference is, in forcing people to buy it. You see, what was being debated was not whether or not health care should be provided for all Americans. What was being debated was whether or not it's Constitutional to fine people for NOT buying health insurance (see: Individual Mandate). If you don't want to talk Chevy cars (and I used that as an example because it's a product that's made in America, for Americans, etc.), then let's talk about something else that's essential for people to live... Food. This would be like fining people for not buying food. As in, if you can create your own food to survive (or have somehow, hypothetically, figured out a way to survive without food), you still HAVE TO purchase it or be fined by the government. Under this ruling, even people who do not NEED health insurance, have to buy it. Meaning, if you're a person who NEVER gets sick, never has any health problems, you still MUST have health insurance. Not only that, but if you are a wealthy person who can afford your own health care costs WITHOUT insurance, you still HAVE TO buy health insurance. No one needs health insurance to survive. Personally, I haven't used my health insurance in over five years. I have it if I do end up needing it, but it's my choice (albeit probably a stupid one) to have not utilized it in years. To say that someone NEEDS something would imply that, without it, they cannot survive in the world. For the past five years (and up to eight, really), I have not needed any health care whatsoever. So what you're saying is that, you're telling me what I need. That you know better than I do about my health.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jun 28, 2012 14:48:10 GMT -5
I just hope the Republicans grab this as a huge, regressive tax on the poor (which it is) and run with it. I hate them as much as the Democrats, but if getting them in office is what it takes to overturn something like this, I'm onboard. I think it could help Romney. He can now say "If you want this law repealed voting for me is the only way," and I'm sure it'll get a lot of people on board. He already is doing this.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Jun 28, 2012 15:16:27 GMT -5
What is the difference in forcing someone to buy health insurance, versus forcing them to buy a Chevrolet vehicle? Many people need extensive healthcare treatment to survive. No one needs a Chevrolet to survive. I can see the point of view of your side, and even see how the Constitution might support your argument, but in my opinion healthcare should be written in an amendment as essential. No one "needs" healthcare insurance to survive. It's out wise to have it? Sure. But you won't die in the street without it. People do require sleep to survive. Should the feds pass a law requiring everyone sleep x hours a night? Sent from my ADR6350 using ProBoards
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jun 28, 2012 15:19:14 GMT -5
Hulk, your new username needs to be...
Dr. Hulk, Attorney at Law, MD: Self-Hating Libertarian
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Jun 28, 2012 15:51:07 GMT -5
love how these are the same people who are "pro-choice"..
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jun 28, 2012 15:59:50 GMT -5
I just think it should be seen by the Government as a necessity. If someone can't afford food and shelter for whatever reason the Government provides it, and I'd add healthcare to that list. I just love the way how, over here, you don't need to worry about it. Everyone is happy to chip in a little to help themselves and help others, no one complains about the NHS, and no one needs to worry about money when they get hurt. I just think the USA should be the same.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jun 28, 2012 16:03:11 GMT -5
I just think it should be seen by the Government as a necessity. If someone can't afford food and shelter for whatever reason the Government provides it, and I'd add healthcare to that list. I just love the way how, over here, you don't need to worry about it. Everyone is happy to chip in a little to help themselves and help others, no one complains about the NHS, and no one needs to worry about money when they get hurt. I just think the USA should be the same. Again, this ruling wasn't even about socializing health care. It's about FINING people who don't buy health insurance. As in, if you're too poor to buy it as of today, you still don't have health insurance -- but now you also get to pay a fine.
|
|
|
Post by jayrod2009 on Jun 28, 2012 16:09:04 GMT -5
Wow..So when people said this man would be the start of a down fall in this country, they were right. This goes against the constitution, and our four fathers would be appalled. Yes, its true, we need car insurance to drive a vehicle, and technically there is no difference between the 2. Put policies can change, and with health insurance that usually means in inflation in cost. Im just hoping this isn't their plan to start pulling us out of our trillion dollar debt. My question is, if this is mandatory, what does this do for/to those that are on government aid programs? Are they still eligible, or do the disappear? Will they get a discounted rate? Some people who aren't using the government for a free ride, and are legitimately in need of aid, won't be able to afford this, especially if they have a large family.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on Jun 28, 2012 16:18:04 GMT -5
I just think it should be seen by the Government as a necessity. If someone can't afford food and shelter for whatever reason the Government provides it, and I'd add healthcare to that list. I just love the way how, over here, you don't need to worry about it. Everyone is happy to chip in a little to help themselves and help others, no one complains about the NHS, and no one needs to worry about money when they get hurt. I just think the USA should be the same. Again, this ruling wasn't even about socializing health care. It's about FINING people who don't buy health insurance. As in, if you're too poor to buy it as of today, you still don't have health insurance -- but now you also get to pay a fine. It doesn't matter how many times you beat this over the head. The long and short is people will never see this for what it is. You oppose it, and you're a radical righter who wants to sentence poor people to death. You favor it, and you're a looney leftist who doesn't want to work for the niceties of life. I, personally, consider myself a political opt-out these days. I maintain views, but I've become so apathetic over the system and the manner in which issues are handled that I've somehow managed to stop caring. For the issue at hand - I like spending my money the way I see fit. The government gets to take enough off the top with the taxes I already pay - do not even begin to tell me how I will spend my net pay. People, of reasonably sound mind, when left to their own defenses, I feel will tend, on the majority, to do the "right thing". I live in a state that doesn't mandate auto insurance. I'm not exactly made of money, but knowing what I do about the conditions of travel, and the other drivers, I willingly pay for full coverage for both cars I own (even the one that is owned outright). I also happen to pay for health insurance for both myself and my wife. We rarely, however, choose to use it. Even as an insured individual, the out of pocket cost is still astronomical. It's one of those "emergency fund" type things, to us, at least. We went for years without. That was our choice. It should always be. The same government that can regulate your paycheck can, and will be the same government that will one day choose your breakfast, lunch, and dinner for you. Wow..So when people said this man would be the start of a down fall in this country, they were right. This goes against the constitution, and our four fathers would be appalled. Yes, its true, we need car insurance to drive a vehicle, and technically there is no difference between the 2. Put policies can change, and with health insurance that usually means in inflation in cost. Im just hoping this isn't their plan to start pulling us out of our trillion dollar debt. My question is, if this is mandatory, what does this do for/to those that are on government aid programs? Are they still eligible, or do the disappear? Will they get a discounted rate? Some people who aren't using the government for a free ride, and are legitimately in need of aid, won't be able to afford this, especially if they have a large family. Who were the Four Fathers of this nation?
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jun 28, 2012 16:30:46 GMT -5
Wow..So when people said this man would be the start of a down fall in this country, they were right. This goes against the constitution, and our four fathers would be appalled. Yes, its true, we need car insurance to drive a vehicle, and technically there is no difference between the 2. Put policies can change, and with health insurance that usually means in inflation in cost. Im just hoping this isn't their plan to start pulling us out of our trillion dollar debt. My question is, if this is mandatory, what does this do for/to those that are on government aid programs? Are they still eligible, or do the disappear? Will they get a discounted rate? Some people who aren't using the government for a free ride, and are legitimately in need of aid, won't be able to afford this, especially if they have a large family. Auto insurance is different than health insurance because, with the minimum auto insurance required under law, you are protecting other people whom your broke ass might harm. Not yourself. When talking about not having health insurance, the effects would be yours. Not some innocent bystander's.
|
|
|
Post by jayrod2009 on Jun 28, 2012 16:34:17 GMT -5
Wow..So when people said this man would be the start of a down fall in this country, they were right. This goes against the constitution, and our four fathers would be appalled. Yes, its true, we need car insurance to drive a vehicle, and technically there is no difference between the 2. Put policies can change, and with health insurance that usually means in inflation in cost. Im just hoping this isn't their plan to start pulling us out of our trillion dollar debt. My question is, if this is mandatory, what does this do for/to those that are on government aid programs? Are they still eligible, or do the disappear? Will they get a discounted rate? Some people who aren't using the government for a free ride, and are legitimately in need of aid, won't be able to afford this, especially if they have a large family. Auto insurance is different than health insurance because, with the minimum auto insurance required under law, you are protecting other people whom your broke ass might harm. Not yourself. When talking about not having health insurance, the effects would be yours. Not some innocent bystander's. Right, But, what will happen with those on government aid? Cause I know there were also talks of diminishing those on these programs.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Jun 28, 2012 16:38:52 GMT -5
You're going to have to be more specific.
|
|
|
Post by jayrod2009 on Jun 28, 2012 16:43:55 GMT -5
You're going to have to be more specific. If American's are now forced to buy Obamacare, which is health insurance, what will happen to those lower class American's that use government aid, Like Medicaid, or for Florida as an example, Florida Kid Care? Will they be loosing any form of government aid insurance, and now have to pay for the Obamacare? Will the government help by giving this insurance free to those in need of aid, or cash assistance? Will they provide a discounted rate?
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jun 28, 2012 17:51:49 GMT -5
Well I'm very curious how this plays out come debate time.
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jun 28, 2012 18:15:50 GMT -5
Judge Napolitano has said this means the government now has the authority to tax unconditionally. They can tax for anything now and it'd be upheld. Don't have a home? Taxed. Don't eat healthy? Taxed. Don't buy Obama's book? Taxed. Ok the last example was a bit extreme but it stands that the government can fine you for not doing something that they want to coerce you to do.
This is one thing where it's appropriate to blame Bush because he gave us Chief Justice Roberts.
This also goes against Obama's promise of not to raise taxes on those below $250,000. There will be 12 tax increases (not including the fine) that will impact those families.
|
|
|
Post by Brad on Jun 28, 2012 18:25:55 GMT -5
Many people need extensive healthcare treatment to survive. No one needs a Chevrolet to survive. I can see the point of view of your side, and even see how the Constitution might support your argument, but in my opinion healthcare should be written in an amendment as essential. You're missing what I'm saying, though... I'm asking what the difference is, in forcing people to buy it. You see, what was being debated was not whether or not health care should be provided for all Americans. What was being debated was whether or not it's Constitutional to fine people for NOT buying health insurance (see: Individual Mandate). If you don't want to talk Chevy cars (and I used that as an example because it's a product that's made in America, for Americans, etc.), then let's talk about something else that's essential for people to live... Food. This would be like fining people for not buying food. As in, if you can create your own food to survive (or have somehow, hypothetically, figured out a way to survive without food), you still HAVE TO purchase it or be fined by the government. Under this ruling, even people who do not NEED health insurance, have to buy it. Meaning, if you're a person who NEVER gets sick, never has any health problems, you still MUST have health insurance. Not only that, but if you are a wealthy person who can afford your own health care costs WITHOUT insurance, you still HAVE TO buy health insurance. No one needs health insurance to survive. Personally, I haven't used my health insurance in over five years. I have it if I do end up needing it, but it's my choice (albeit probably a stupid one) to have not utilized it in years. To say that someone NEEDS something would imply that, without it, they cannot survive in the world. For the past five years (and up to eight, really), I have not needed any health care whatsoever. So what you're saying is that, you're telling me what I need. That you know better than I do about my health. I totally agree with you, man.
|
|