The Fight Against the Health Care Takeover

[dblack]

Form over function.

Got it.

You did? You are fine with Congress and the President lying to us? You're ok with legislation getting passed on the basis of those lies?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Form over function.

Got it.

You did? You are fine with Congress and the President lying to us? You're ok with legislation getting passed on the basis of those lies?

It didn't pass on the basis of any lies you moron. The law says exactly what it says. The idea that the actual purpose of the law was to predict what words the Supreme Court would use to describe the law is fucking retarded but that appears to be what your argument is based on.

 

[dblack]

It didn't pass on the basis of any lies you moron. The law says exactly what it says. The idea that the actual purpose of the law was to predict what words the Supreme Court would use to describe the law is fucking retarded but that appears to be what your argument is based on.

Of course it passed based on that. Or were you asleep when Obama and members of Congress were being grilled repeatedly by the press - trying to get them to admit they were raising taxes. If they'd given in and told the truth, public pressure would have undercut their sweetheart deal with the insurance industry and likely ended PPACA before it started - especially in light of the sketchy economic situation. So, they lied to us an passed the bill on false pretense.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry but Roberts didn't change the text of the law. You can look it up in the U.S. Code its exactly the same.

It's true. They called it one thing, the Supreme court interpreted as another. It's an awesome arrangement. Congress can claim that they didn't raise taxes - even though the Court recognizes the obvious fact that they did. Roberts essentially endorsed flat out lying on the part of our legislators. Accountability is strictly for suckers.

The power to tax does not place any restrictions on what a tax can be called you dummy.

Even the Republican candidate refers to the same penalty in his RomneyCare as a "penalty tax". But I guess words mean different things in mass, as well, right?

You wouldn't have a problem with them calling a tax a dog?

The problem here is that the law specifically says that the penalty is not a tax, yet Roberts said it is. That is out and out judicial activism, something you claim to hate.

 

[emilynghiem]

Form over function.

Got it.

You did? You are fine with Congress and the President lying to us? You're ok with legislation getting passed on the basis of those lies?

It didn't pass on the basis of any lies you moron. The law says exactly what it says. The idea that the actual purpose of the law was to predict what words the Supreme Court would use to describe the law is fucking retarded but that appears to be what your argument is based on.

Dear OohPoo: Now here's a third thing that needs explanation, if you can PLEASE help:
3. how can this be interpreted as a tax, when the money is not going to govt to pay for services, the required payment is going to private companies that provide insurance (not health services directly) and only if this requirement is NOT met, then the person pays the govt a fine. How is that a tax?

The court's ruling was based on this being constitutional within federal powers because it is a tax on the people, as opposed to a requirement that people buy from a private institution but mandated by govt.

The other questions I had if you can please answer:
1. How is the exemption requirement to opt out, which is based on meeting religious conditions, NOT a form of govt regulating religion or discriminating on the basis of religion?

2. How can the same party of liberal/Democrats oppose prolife mandates through govt and oppose penalties on women for the choice of abortion, while advocating for this federal mandate imposing penalties on people for wanting to choose something besides insurance to pay for health care? How is this consistent with prochoice arguments, and how can something even more harmless than choosing abortion be penalized by federal laws?

Can you PLEASE explain either 1, 2 or 3.

Maybe I should ask Donald Trump to give out a monetary prize to anyone who can answer?
(besides the stock answer I get from most people, that "Democrats don't care, that's why")

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

It didn't pass on the basis of any lies you moron. The law says exactly what it says. The idea that the actual purpose of the law was to predict what words the Supreme Court would use to describe the law is fucking retarded but that appears to be what your argument is based on.

Of course it passed based on that. Or were you asleep when Obama and members of Congress were being grilled repeatedly by the press - trying to get them to admit they were raising taxes. If they'd given in and told the truth, public pressure would have undercut their sweetheart deal with the insurance industry and likely ended PPACA before it started - especially in light of the sketchy economic situation. So, they lied to us an passed the bill on false pretense.

Is that another one of those negative claims that you don't have to offer any evidence for?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You did? You are fine with Congress and the President lying to us? You're ok with legislation getting passed on the basis of those lies?

It didn't pass on the basis of any lies you moron. The law says exactly what it says. The idea that the actual purpose of the law was to predict what words the Supreme Court would use to describe the law is fucking retarded but that appears to be what your argument is based on.

Dear OohPoo: Now here's a third thing that needs explanation, if you can PLEASE help:
3. how can this be interpreted as a tax, when the money is not going to govt to pay for services, the required payment is going to private companies that provide insurance (not health services directly) and only if this requirement is NOT met, then the person pays the govt a fine. How is that a tax?

If the requirement is met and the taxpayer buys insurance they aren't paying a tax, they are buying insurance. The tax is only paid if you don't buy insurance.

Its an income tax because its levied on your income. Make no income and you don't owe the tax.

The other questions I had if you can please answer:
1. How is the exemption requirement to opt out, which is based on meeting religious conditions, NOT a form of govt regulating religion or discriminating on the basis of religion?

There is no religious based exemption from the individual mandate.

2. How can the same party of liberal/Democrats oppose prolife mandates through govt and oppose penalties on women for the choice of abortion, while advocating for this federal mandate imposing penalties on people for wanting to choose something besides insurance to pay for health care? How is this consistent with prochoice arguments, and how can something even more harmless than choosing abortion be penalized by federal laws?

You can apply that worthless argument to most any law, so basically your question is "how can the Democrats dare to pass any laws at all without first agreeing with the pro-life stance on abortion?" That's essentially your question. And its a fucking stupid one.

 

[emilynghiem]

Form over function.

Got it.

You did? You are fine with Congress and the President lying to us? You're ok with legislation getting passed on the basis of those lies?

I think this is more political karma, like the passage through Congress of the war declaration based on Bush's misrepresentation. By the letter of the law, it was not a response to 9/11 directly because Iraq was not responsible directly. If Saddam Hussein hid weapons of mass destruction by moving them to Syria, then he and his co-onspirators should pay, but not necessarily by attacking the whole country and making the innocent civilians and victims of his regime suffer along with the perpetrator of his abuses and genocidal crimes. The pro-peace anti-war protestors were outraged at the impossible costs to taxpayers of the war, and the damage done to civilian infrastructure, where the hospital and health care system in Iraq was already destroyed from sanctions before this hit their country. So now it seems it is the GOP's and conservatives' turn to freak out about the damage to our private health care system by "well-meaning" do-gooders who are doing this more for their own political image and less about really fixing the problems since they are not affected by this bill.

Last time, it was the liberal Democrats saying this about Bush, that his agenda at taxpayer expense was for political reasons. And the challenge was to organize the base that was split between Green and independents who did not support the Democrats enough to get rid of Bush. And now it's the other way, where Libertarian, Tea Party and other independents are going to have to band together with the GOP to stop this nonsense that is for political gain.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Form over function.

Got it.

You did? You are fine with Congress and the President lying to us? You're ok with legislation getting passed on the basis of those lies?

I think this is more political karma, like the passage through Congress of the war declaration based on Bush's misrepresentation. By the letter of the law, it was not a response to 9/11 directly because Iraq was not responsible directly.

But they were "indirectly" ? LOL!

Last time, it was the liberal Democrats saying this about Bush, that his agenda at taxpayer expense was for political reasons. And the challenge was to organize the base that was split between Green and independents who did not support the Democrats enough to get rid of Bush..

Really? The ACA was for political "gain"? Are you fucking serious? The Democrats were terribly penalized politically for that move!

And now it's the other way, where Libertarian, Tea Party and other independents are going to have to band together with the GOP to stop this nonsense that is for political gain

Yeah. They tried that. It didn't work. Maybe you weren't aware. Romney lost. The Republicans lack an override proof majority. And they will not have one at least until 2015. By then Obamacare will be in effect.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi OohPoo, thanks for replying!

1.

If the requirement is met and the taxpayer buys insurance they aren't paying a tax, they are buying insurance. The tax is only paid if you don't buy insurance.

Its an income tax because its levied on your income. Make no income and you don't owe the tax.

So how is the federal mandate to buy the insurance a tax?
Isn't that the part that was contested was unconstitutional?

Thank you for explaining that the condition ATTACHED to it was a tax.
My question is how is the original condition (which is contested) is a tax?

2.

There is no religious based exemption from the individual mandate.

Yes, I cited it in the other message.
the exemption on individual who are part of a religious group existing since 1999 that has a policy of shared medical expenses.

How is that not govt discrimination or regulation on the basis of religion?

3. RE: How can the same party of liberal/Democrats oppose prolife mandates through govt and oppose penalties on women for the choice of abortion, while advocating for this federal mandate imposing penalties on people for wanting to choose something besides insurance to pay for health care? How is this consistent with prochoice arguments, and how can something even more harmless than choosing abortion be penalized by federal laws?

You can apply that worthless argument to most any law, so basically your question is "how can the Democrats dare to pass any laws at all without first agreeing with the pro-life stance on abortion?" That's essentially your question. And its a fucking stupid one.

a. my question is not legality of passing a bill that contradicts party policy, because you can be a total hypocrite in private and pass legislation that is constitutional.

b. my question is of INTELLECTUAL honesty and political integrity:
how can you argue for prochoice, against legislation even if it could save lives,
but then be for this bill that negates free choice?

Can you admit that someone who argues against prolife mandates for prochoice reasons would expect to argue against this bill for similar reasons of constitutionality? And not putting personal politics or beliefs above constitutional protection of freedom of others?

 

[emilynghiem]

But they were "indirectly" ? LOL!

I am not going to go farther than what both sides would agree with - that Iraq was not directly responsible for 9/11. there is contention that Saddam was indirectly responsible for terrorism by funding and supporting them in general. This is not proven, so that is why I will just stick to the part that can't be argued with - that Iraq was not directly responsible. so the war declared on Iraq leaders for weapons issues cannot be argued as justified by 9/11

Really? The ACA was for political "gain"? Are you fucking serious? The Democrats were terribly penalized politically for that move!

Obama asked for support on this bill to validate his presidency.
The Democrats supported it for political partisan reasons.
That partisanship of putting party above Constitution is why they were penalized after.

Again, OPPD, you point to the action ATTACHED to the original one as the penalty.
That would not have occurred if the original action had been constitutional and not partisan to begin with!
THAT'S the part that is for partisan purposes!

Yeah. They tried that. It didn't work. Maybe you weren't aware. Romney lost. The Republicans lack an override proof majority. And they will not have one at least until 2015. By then Obamacare will be in effect.

Gore failed to unite enough voters to get rid of Bush who got a second term.
That is what I am talking about.

As for the independent opposition to the bill, that could still be used to push for alternative options. The whole bill could still be treated as optional in order to be constitutional.

The main point is not to impose costs on other people for your health care.
That can still be done in other ways without relying on insurance mandates.

 

[emilynghiem]

This is why I've pretty much stopped reading most posts on this subject. And, its definitely why I will never again do research for anyone here.

All anyone can say is that ObamaCare is bad but if any evidence is posted about the benefits, as was posted concerning this, as we get are complaints about the source being liberal - even when its not.

I decided not to post links or do research for anyone here and that's the way its gonna stay. Any of you can make whatever you want of that but if you want info, you have the same access to the internet that I do. Use it.

OTOH, I did make a long list of things about ACA and I may still post that as a jumping off place for a real discussion.

But, I DO mean discussion. NOT, teacher is in, spoon feeding session. Sorry but I'm just up for it anymore.

(Note to Emily - you see like an intelligent person, not given to the usual childish name calling here. Check the Kaiser site for extremely detailed and factual info. That's the same site that was poo-poo'ed for being "liberal" so if you feel that way, you could look at any of the other gazillions of sites. Also, I have posted numerous links in previous threads.)

Dear LuddlyN: Please go ahead and post links. Please do not feed the perception that all supporters of the ACA are repeating word of mouth propaganda from the media.

The more you can work both the cites and your personal explanations to direct people to resources, the better you can explain to others, so it will make it easier.

If you just quit now, people will assume you are a copout and didn't know what you were saying to begin with. I will look for the Kaiser site.

But in general, I'm just telling you, that requiring people to buy private health insurance is not the role of govt but outside federal jurisdiction. There is no sense in penalizing people for wanting to exercise freedom to make choices how to pay for health csare outside of govt bureaucracy and dictates. It makes even LESS sense in the larger context of making it LEGAL for noncitizens to access taxpaid benefits, while penalizing CITIZENS for not depending on govt mandates. That part cannot be fixed by explaining any part of the conditions under the given bill, except how to opt OUT or get exempted without imposing more govt conditions or regulations based on religious beliefs. That is why you may not have any luck, if the bill is biased to begin with to punish freedom of choice. However, for individual points, such as where are the exemptions for showing financial responsibility, that can be proven by citing the law. So if you make claims or interpretations like that, it will help to cite what part of the law says that. Please take responsibility for explaining what you claim, or you make it even harder for others to believe what is being said about this bill. Thank you!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It didn't pass on the basis of any lies you moron. The law says exactly what it says. The idea that the actual purpose of the law was to predict what words the Supreme Court would use to describe the law is fucking retarded but that appears to be what your argument is based on.

Of course it passed based on that. Or were you asleep when Obama and members of Congress were being grilled repeatedly by the press - trying to get them to admit they were raising taxes. If they'd given in and told the truth, public pressure would have undercut their sweetheart deal with the insurance industry and likely ended PPACA before it started - especially in light of the sketchy economic situation. So, they lied to us an passed the bill on false pretense.

Rather than wasting your time rehashing a moot issue, you need to be arguing in favor of what type of reform you’d support.

 

[dblack]

It didn't pass on the basis of any lies you moron. The law says exactly what it says. The idea that the actual purpose of the law was to predict what words the Supreme Court would use to describe the law is fucking retarded but that appears to be what your argument is based on.

Of course it passed based on that. Or were you asleep when Obama and members of Congress were being grilled repeatedly by the press - trying to get them to admit they were raising taxes. If they'd given in and told the truth, public pressure would have undercut their sweetheart deal with the insurance industry and likely ended PPACA before it started - especially in light of the sketchy economic situation. So, they lied to us an passed the bill on false pretense.

Rather than wasting your time rehashing a moot issue, you need to be arguing in favor of what type of reform you’d support.

Good idea. The first thing that has to go is the individual mandate, and along with it the bone-headed assumptions: 1) That there is only one right right way to take of your health, and 2) That government should, or even has a right to, force everyone to subscribe to that one right solution.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Hi OohPoo, thanks for replying!

1.

If the requirement is met and the taxpayer buys insurance they aren't paying a tax, they are buying insurance. The tax is only paid if you don't buy insurance.

Its an income tax because its levied on your income. Make no income and you don't owe the tax.

So how is the federal mandate to buy the insurance a tax?
Isn't that the part that was contested was unconstitutional?

Thank you for explaining that the condition ATTACHED to it was a tax.
My question is how is the original condition (which is contested) is a tax?

It isn't. Buying insurance is not a tax. The Roberts opinion makes no such statement that buying insurance is a tax. If you are so interested in what the opinion states have you ever thought of, I dunno, maybe, reading it?

Yes, I cited it in the other message.

Could you please be a bit more vague?

b. my question is of INTELLECTUAL honesty and political integrity:
how can you argue for prochoice, against legislation even if it could save lives,
but then be for this bill that negates free choice?

Women and their uteri are none of my fucking business. When you show up to a hospital that treats you for an emergency and you have no ability to pay - that can become my business because I might have to foot part of the fucking bill for it. That's how.

Can you admit that someone who argues against prolife mandates for prochoice reasons would expect to argue against this bill for similar reasons of constitutionality? And not putting personal politics or beliefs above constitutional protection of freedom of others?

Things that live in water and do not breathe air do not have any Constitutional protections. To suggest that a fetus is a higher citizen than the woman it lives in is the height of stupidity.

 

[dblack]

When you show up to a hospital that treats you for an emergency and you have no ability to pay - that can become my business because I might have to foot part of the fucking bill for it. That's how.

Fair enough. Then it sounds like we can agree that, unless I do that, how I pay for my health care isn't any of your business (or the government's), right?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

When you show up to a hospital that treats you for an emergency and you have no ability to pay - that can become my business because I might have to foot part of the fucking bill for it. That's how.

Fair enough. Then it sounds like we can agree that, unless I do that, how I pay for my health care isn't any of your business (or the government's), right?

Unless you do it? You are mortal, aren't you? If you are mortal and do not have insurance - you are at definite risk of costing me money because of your irresponsibility.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Gore failed to unite enough voters to get rid of Bush who got a second term.
That is what I am talking about.

Gore didn't run against Bush in Bush's second election. John Kerry did. Ask your parents, they're old enough to remember.

The main point is not to impose costs on other people for your health care.
That can still be done in other ways without relying on insurance mandates.

How? By allowing hospitals to dump patients?

 

[dblack]

When you show up to a hospital that treats you for an emergency and you have no ability to pay - that can become my business because I might have to foot part of the fucking bill for it. That's how.

Fair enough. Then it sounds like we can agree that, unless I do that, how I pay for my health care isn't any of your business (or the government's), right?

Unless you do it? You are mortal, aren't you? If you are mortal and do not have insurance - you are at definite risk of costing me money because of your irresponsibility and in fact its pretty much certain that one day you will.

No. it's not actually. I make exactly no claim on any resources or services that might cost your stingy ass some money.

Tell me this much, if this whole idea of uncompensated care is really your biggest beef with health care - if the main goal for you is really to keep all us freeloaders from leaching off your wealth - then you'd probably be in favor of an opt-out, eh? How about we let people who don't want to give up their rights the option of giving up the supposed security of EMTALA as well. We can remain free to buy only the insurance we want - or even none at all - and the hospitals don't have to treat us if we can't pay.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Fair enough. Then it sounds like we can agree that, unless I do that, how I pay for my health care isn't any of your business (or the government's), right?

Unless you do it? You are mortal, aren't you? If you are mortal and do not have insurance - you are at definite risk of costing me money because of your irresponsibility and in fact its pretty much certain that one day you will.

No. it's not actually. I make exactly no claim on any resources or services that might cost your stingy ass some money.

I'm not worried about any present claims, I'm worried about what claims you might make when you are bleeding to death. Somehow I doubt you're going to refuse treatment just to save me a buck.

Tell me this much, if this whole idea of uncompensated care is really your biggest beef with health care - if the main goal for you is really to keep all us freeloaders from leaching off your wealth - then you'd probably be in favor of an opt-out, eh? How about we let people who don't want to give up their rights the option of giving up the supposed security of EMTALA as well. We can remain free to buy only the insurance we want - or even none at all - and the hospitals don't have to treat us if we can't pay.

Awesome plan. And when someone shows up on an emergency room table dying and has no way to prove whether they are opt-in or opt-out - what then?

And parents - they can opt-out on behalf of their minor children in your brain dead plan, I take it?

Here's a clue - get off your lazy ass and buy health insurance.