Obamacare decision: An intended consequence not considered by the left

[M14 Shooter]

Giving companies and unions unlimited waivers won't change the law that insurance companies can't discriminate against someone with pre-existing conditions. Everyone healthy will drop their coverage until they're sick. Companies will only have sick people as customers and that is not sustainable.

So... Obamacare's mandate that insurance companies accept patienst with pre-exsting conditiond is flawed because it will collapse the system.
Why do you support such a thing?

And further.... People can still opt of out insueance, they just pay a tax. Does that tax revenue go to the insurance companies to make up for the unencumbered revenue they lose from the heallty people not paying into the system? If not, then the individual mandate does nothing to allievate your concern.

It's only flawed when presented by itself. Just like the mandate is flawed when presented by itself. They work in tandem...

You must have missed this:

And further.... People can still opt of out insurance, they just pay a tax. Does that tax revenue go to the insurance companies to make up for the unencumbered revenue they lose from the heallty people not paying into the [insurance] system? If not, then the individual mandate does nothing to allievate your concern.

So, again: Why do you support a system that you describe as flawed?

 

[SniperFire]

Senate rules do not allow a filibuster when the bill under consideration relates to imposing or repealing a tax; if the Republicans take the Senate and the Presidency, they can now repeal the individual mandate with a simple majority - they will not need sixty votes.

Pelosi still says it's not a tax.

... and when it comes to 'Senate rules' - they will be bent if the collapse of our insurance industry, and other industries, would be threatened.

 

[tererun]

No, because Romney will waive everyone's requirements to participate in this cluster at all.

Eventually Congress will be forced to sink this turd completely and come up with something that both parties can live with.

Giving companies and unions unlimited waivers won't change the law that insurance companies can't discriminate against someone with pre-existing conditions. Everyone healthy will drop their coverage until they're sick. Companies will only have sick people as customers and that is not sustainable.

The requirements to follow the law will be waived.

Obama does such shit all the time.

karma sucks, don't it?

You are relying on two face who put the mandate in place in MA to actually live up to his campaign promises and screw the insurance companies who he sees as people out of guaranteed customers? That is if the king of chinese job creation gets elected in the first place.

OK, seems like some big old fail to me. Could you whine a little louder?

 

[DontBeStupid]

So... Obamacare's mandate that insurance companies accept patienst with pre-exsting conditiond is flawed because it will collapse the system.
Why do you support such a thing?

And further.... People can still opt of out insueance, they just pay a tax. Does that tax revenue go to the insurance companies to make up for the unencumbered revenue they lose from the heallty people not paying into the system? If not, then the individual mandate does nothing to allievate your concern.

It's only flawed when presented by itself. Just like the mandate is flawed when presented by itself. They work in tandem, which is why it's been so interesting to see "conservatives" scream about getting rid of the mandate and keeping the anti-pre-existing conditions rule.

When the funding elements are repealed, the entire law goes down - as a practical matter.

Are you posting from overseas? This isn't how laws work in the U.S.A.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Senate rules do not allow a filibuster when the bill under consideration relates to imposing or repealing a tax; if the Republicans take the Senate and the Presidency, they can now repeal the individual mandate with a simple majority - they will not need sixty votes.

Pelosi still says it's not a tax.

John Roberts says she is wrong. He wins.

 

[SniperFire]

Giving companies and unions unlimited waivers won't change the law that insurance companies can't discriminate against someone with pre-existing conditions. Everyone healthy will drop their coverage until they're sick. Companies will only have sick people as customers and that is not sustainable.

The requirements to follow the law will be waived.

Obama does such shit all the time.

karma sucks, don't it?

You are relying on two face who put the mandate in place in MA to actually live up to his campaign promises and screw the insurance companies who he sees as people out of guaranteed customers? That is if the king of chinese job creation gets elected in the first place.

OK, seems like some big old fail to me. Could you whine a little louder?

Smell the fear. LOL

 

[M14 Shooter]

So... Obamacare's mandate that insurance companies accept patienst with pre-exsting conditiond is flawed because it will collapse the system.
Why do you support such a thing?

And further.... People can still opt of out insueance, they just pay a tax. Does that tax revenue go to the insurance companies to make up for the unencumbered revenue they lose from the heallty people not paying into the system? If not, then the individual mandate does nothing to allievate your concern.

It's only flawed when presented by itself. Just like the mandate is flawed when presented by itself. They work in tandem, which is why it's been so interesting to see "conservatives" scream about getting rid of the mandate and keeping the anti-pre-existing conditions rule.

When the funding elements are repealed, the entire law goes down - as a practical matter.

Not in the United States it doesn't. Laws are (usually) specifically written to remain in force as mush as possible, should part of them be struck.

This is how the Brady Act survived Printz v. United States

 

[SniperFire]

It's only flawed when presented by itself. Just like the mandate is flawed when presented by itself. They work in tandem, which is why it's been so interesting to see "conservatives" scream about getting rid of the mandate and keeping the anti-pre-existing conditions rule.

When the funding elements are repealed, the entire law goes down - as a practical matter.

Are you posting from overseas? This isn't how laws work in the U.S.A.

Sure it is. Perhaps you need examples:

Obama stops enforcement of Defense of Marriage Act

Obama stops enforcement of Defense of Marriage Act - The Independent Collegian - University of Toledo

 

[Charles_Main]

Liberals Will Wake up to this Eventually. Roberts is being loved by the Left and hated by the Right, Right now. However the Fact is the way he Just Ruled has created the Most Favorable environment for Repeal that could have been hopped for.

Now, If the Republicans do take the Senate, Hold the House and take the WH. and Proceed to Attempt to Repeal the Bill, it will be on them then to Spell out an Alternative because while a huge Majority don't like the law, Most of them know something has to be done, and just didn't like this Solution.

So if they go Repeal the Bill with no Answers to The Underlying Problem, then their Return to Power will be shorted lived indeed.

What Roberts Basically said with This ruling is that just because a Bill may be stupid, or Unpopular, does not mean it is not Legal. He sent the Decision back to the people, and we still have the power to change this if we so choose.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Giving companies and unions unlimited waivers won't change the law that insurance companies can't discriminate against someone with pre-existing conditions. Everyone healthy will drop their coverage until they're sick. Companies will only have sick people as customers and that is not sustainable.

The requirements to follow the law will be waived.

Obama does such shit all the time.

karma sucks, don't it?

You are relying on two face who put the mandate in place in MA to actually live up to his campaign promises and screw the insurance companies who he sees as people out of guaranteed customers?

The individual mandate doesnt guarantee that -anyone- will be a customer.

 

[SniperFire]

It's only flawed when presented by itself. Just like the mandate is flawed when presented by itself. They work in tandem, which is why it's been so interesting to see "conservatives" scream about getting rid of the mandate and keeping the anti-pre-existing conditions rule.

When the funding elements are repealed, the entire law goes down - as a practical matter.

Not in the United States it doesn't. Laws are (usually) specifically written to remain in force as mush as possible, should part of them be struck.

This is how the Brady Act survived Printz v. United States

Well, I didn't mean the laws technically go down. I said as a practical matter.

 

[DontBeStupid]

So... Obamacare's mandate that insurance companies accept patienst with pre-exsting conditiond is flawed because it will collapse the system.
Why do you support such a thing?

And further.... People can still opt of out insueance, they just pay a tax. Does that tax revenue go to the insurance companies to make up for the unencumbered revenue they lose from the heallty people not paying into the system? If not, then the individual mandate does nothing to allievate your concern.

It's only flawed when presented by itself. Just like the mandate is flawed when presented by itself. They work in tandem...

You must have missed this:

And further.... People can still opt of out insurance, they just pay a tax. Does that tax revenue go to the insurance companies to make up for the unencumbered revenue they lose from the heallty people not paying into the [insurance] system? If not, then the individual mandate does nothing to allievate your concern.

So, again: Why do you support a system that you describe as flawed?

Your premise is flawed. Just because someone CAN drop insurance until they get sick doesn't mean they will, especially with the mandate. Your assuming the majority of people will act in a way that is against their best interests, at that doesn't happen.

 

[SniperFire]

Liberals Will Wake up to this Eventually. Roberts is being loved by the Left and hated by the Right, Right now. However the Fact is the way he Just Ruled has created the Most Favorable environment for Repeal that could have been hopped for.

Now, If the Republicans do take the Senate, Hold the House and take the WH. and Proceed to Attempt to Repeal the Bill, it will be on them then to Spell out an Alternative because while a huge Majority don't like the law, Most of them know something has to be done, and just didn't like this Solution.

So if they go Repeal the Bill with no Answers to The Underlying Problem, then their Return to Power will be shorted lived indeed.

What Roberts Basically said with This ruling is that just because a Bill may be stupid, or Unpopular, does not mean it is not Legal. He sent the Decision back to the people, and we still have the power to change this if we so choose.

After the initial shock, there are a lot of us on the right who agree with you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Senate rules do not allow a filibuster when the bill under consideration relates to imposing or repealing a tax; if the Republicans take the Senate and the Presidency, they can now repeal the individual mandate with a simple majority - they will not need sixty votes.

Pelosi still says it's not a tax.

... and when it comes to 'Senate rules' - they will be bent if the collapse of our insurance industry, and other industries, would be threatened.

Why would a presumed GOP-controlled senate bend/break/ignore the fillibuster rules to stop the GOP-controlled senate from repealing Obamacare when all it has to do is not bring it up for a vote?

 

[Meister]

I would agree.

Problem is, you get rid of the mandate, and insurance companies go bankrupt. Not something they will allow to happen.

No, because Romney will waive everyone's requirements to participate in this cluster at all.

Eventually Congress will be forced to sink this turd completely and come up with something that both parties can live with.

Giving companies and unions unlimited waivers won't change the law that insurance companies can't discriminate against someone with pre-existing conditions. Everyone healthy will drop their coverage until they're sick. Companies will only have sick people as customers and that is not sustainable.

Hmmm, sounds like a way for the government to take over the industry at that point, huh?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's only flawed when presented by itself. Just like the mandate is flawed when presented by itself. They work in tandem...

You must have missed this:

And further.... People can still opt of out insurance, they just pay a tax. Does that tax revenue go to the insurance companies to make up for the unencumbered revenue they lose from the heallty people not paying into the [insurance] system? If not, then the individual mandate does nothing to allievate your concern.

So, again: Why do you support a system that you describe as flawed?

Your premise is flawed.

MY premise is flawed?

YOU argue that the only way the forced acceptance of preconditions can work is thru the individual mandate when said mandate does not force anyone to buy insurance, does not guarantee that anyone will buy insurance, and does not subsidizes the insurance industry with the tax revenues it generates.

THAT is flawed, on its face.

So, again: Why do you support a system that you describe as flawed?

 

[DontBeStupid]

No, because Romney will waive everyone's requirements to participate in this cluster at all.

Eventually Congress will be forced to sink this turd completely and come up with something that both parties can live with.

Giving companies and unions unlimited waivers won't change the law that insurance companies can't discriminate against someone with pre-existing conditions. Everyone healthy will drop their coverage until they're sick. Companies will only have sick people as customers and that is not sustainable.

Hmmm, sounds like a way for the government to take over the industry at that point, huh?

Actually, yes. Which is why, again, it was so interesting to see "conservatives" scream about removing the mandate.

 

[SniperFire]

Pelosi still says it's not a tax.

... and when it comes to 'Senate rules' - they will be bent if the collapse of our insurance industry, and other industries, would be threatened.

Why would a presumed GOP-controlled senate bend/break/ignore the fillibuster rules to stop the GOP-controlled senate from repealing Obamacare when all it has to do is not bring it up for a vote?

I was thinking about the argument made by the Lefty tard which said that all of our insurance companies would go bankrupt because they must sign up sick customers even though the funding element of ObamaTax was eliminated.

That wouldn't happen.

 

[M14 Shooter]

... and when it comes to 'Senate rules' - they will be bent if the collapse of our insurance industry, and other industries, would be threatened.

Why would a presumed GOP-controlled senate bend/break/ignore the fillibuster rules to stop the GOP-controlled senate from repealing Obamacare when all it has to do is not bring it up for a vote?

I was thinking about the argument made by the Lefty tard which said that all of our insurance companies would go bankrupt because they must sign up sick customers even though the funding element of ObamaTax was eliminated.

That wouldn't happen.

Aha. 10-4.

 

[Meister]

Giving companies and unions unlimited waivers won't change the law that insurance companies can't discriminate against someone with pre-existing conditions. Everyone healthy will drop their coverage until they're sick. Companies will only have sick people as customers and that is not sustainable.

Hmmm, sounds like a way for the government to take over the industry at that point, huh?

Actually, yes. Which is why, again, it was so interesting to see "conservatives" scream about removing the mandate.

It was going to go down that road regardless. This is just the first step as to where this country is going with the industry. In the end, it will cost more than anybody dreamed, just like in all the countries that have tried it. More spending, more taxes, more deficit, more spending, more taxes, more....well, you get the picture.