Obamacare decision: An intended consequence not considered by the left

[old navy]

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.

Removing the mandate had to do with the constitution. With the mandate gone, the entire law could be sent back and something workable built to replace it.

 

[DontBeStupid]

... 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.

Just because you believe it does make it true.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

How do more taxes lead to more deficits?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

When the funding elements are repealed, the entire law goes down - as a practical matter.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

Okay, that's got to be the best and biggest pile of steaming ignorance I've read from one of the most ignorant rw's on this board.

Its also damn funny.

Thanks SniperFire.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Not going to happen. Face it, the affordable care act is here to stay.

....For FOUR....​

.....VERY GOOD REASONS!!!!​

. . . . . . ​

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If you rw's would read the decision you would understand why the scotus DECIDED to CALL it a tax.

Go ahead. Read their decisions.

What the hell, why don't you also read the law!

LOL

 

[Meister]

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.

How do more taxes lead to more deficits?

We're talking about the government...not yours or my household.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You might want to worry about winning the presidency and the Senate before you start counting the chickens.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you rw's would read the decision you would understand why the scotus DECIDED to CALL it a tax.

Go ahead. Read their decisions.

What the hell, why don't you also read the law!

LOL

Quite a few cons have forgotten that they called it a tax in the past as well.

 

[Katzndogz]

The whole of the obamatax was to force insurance companies out of business. Overwhelm them with people with preexisting conditions then the government can take those insurance companies over. Or, do the same thing the government did with banks. Send in regulators that will just say the company is not financially stable and the government takes it over. Within a remarkably short time there will be single payer health care with all the rationing the government desires.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

How do more taxes lead to more deficits?

We're talking about the government...not yours or my household.

So n o other country has controlled spiraling health care costs? OMG!

Have other countries slowed the spiral more than the USA has?


LOTS. What do they have that we don't have?

come on...you know...say it....say it....



http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/themes/


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

 

[Qball]

If you rw's would read the decision you would understand why the scotus DECIDED to CALL it a tax.

Go ahead. Read their decisions.

What the hell, why don't you also read the law!

LOL

Quite a few cons have forgotten that they called it a tax in the past as well.

Quite a few libs have forgotten that they emphatically denied it was a tax and said that was just Tea Party hysteria in the past as well.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

hey! in the US we get to pick and choose which laws we like,, ask witholder and obamer.

 

[WillowTree]

If you rw's would read the decision you would understand why the scotus DECIDED to CALL it a tax.

Go ahead. Read their decisions.

What the hell, why don't you also read the law!

LOL

that's easy, because there are 21 new taxes embedded within the law totaling 675 billion dollars to be overseen by the IRS and furthur a penalty tax will be levied on you if you fail to do what you are commanded to do by the lousy two bit democrats.

 

[DontBeStupid]

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.

How do more taxes lead to more deficits?

We're talking about the government...not yours or my household.

Are you honestly suggesting that if the government collects more in taxes it will then create more deficits?

Wow ... uhm ... wow.

 

[WillowTree]

How do more taxes lead to more deficits?

We're talking about the government...not yours or my household.

Are you honestly suggesting that if the government collects more in taxes it will then create more deficits?

Wow ... uhm ... wow.

they always spend more than the collect dumbass. so yes, that would be correct. collect 5 spend 15 that's how we got to a 16 trillion dollar debt..

 

[DontBeStupid]

We're talking about the government...not yours or my household.

Are you honestly suggesting that if the government collects more in taxes it will then create more deficits?

Wow ... uhm ... wow.

they always spend more than the collect dumbass. so yes, that would be correct. collect 5 spend 15 that's how we got to a 16 trillion dollar debt..

You know that's historically wrong, right? You know that, right? I mean, it was a LONG time ago ... 12 years.

 

[daveman]

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.

All the left has is unintended consequences.

But their intentions are good, and that's all that matters.

Right, USMB lefties?

 

[daveman]

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?

That's been the goal all along, of course.

 

[Meister]

How do more taxes lead to more deficits?

We're talking about the government...not yours or my household.

Are you honestly suggesting that if the government collects more in taxes it will then create more deficits?

Wow ... uhm ... wow.

You must of glossed over the "more spending" portion of my quote.
Wow....uhm... wow. Not surprising though.