The real winners of the ACA

[TyroneSlothrop]

Abortion is not a health issue. It is an economic one. It is murder for bogus economic reasons.

A very, very tiny percentage of abortions are for the health of the mother. The vast majority are for convenience.

Killing a child in the womb because they cost too much is no different than killing a six month old because they cost too much.

I am sorry but neither you nor anyone else should make those Judgements on our fellow Americans...either one believes in Freedom or not....

That unborn child is a fellow human being, jackass. And God will judge those who would murder that child.

I will take my chances with God's Judgement its the Judgement of folks convinced they know better than me what is in my conscience that I get wiggly with...God will Judge those who pass harsh judgements on others .......

 

[Claudette]

I agree with g5000. NO way can anyone force anyone to buy a commercial product.

If the States Attorney Generals had any brains they would band together and bring it back to the SC.

Tax may ass. Its forcing folks to buy a commercial product.

 

[g5000]

The Government already has a right to come busting into your home with long guns if someone told them you have marijuana...the Govt can make one pee in a cup at will...that train left the station some time back and I recall the right wing cheering,,,there is no encroachment to my rights in the ACA law nor do I see how it encroaches on anyone else...or better said how it encroaches in a radical new way on We the People...

Yeah. I get that you're not seeing that. But you need to open your eyes. ACA takes away the most fundamental right we have as consumers: the right to say "no" to a product or service when we don't think it's worth the cost.

You can say no and pay the tax penalty but you can say no...If you are a conscientious objector in Times of war you can say No and go to jail or serve as a medic ..its not a radical departure from heretofore practices...

Yep.

You can say no to buying a house, but you will pay a tax penalty.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The ACA is forcing everyone to buy a commercial product.

The Govt has coercive powers over people. The issue you are bringing up was litigated all the way to the Supreme Court...the Govt requires auto insurance to drive ...the Financil industry requires home owners insurance for a Mtg...it is something I do not like [the use of coercive power] . The penalties for non compliance are not onerous ...this same program was enacted by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts...this is not the Invasion of the Body Snatchers

This is exactly how I explain the huge mistake faux conservatives have made.

A fake right winger will scream like a welfare queen if you try to take away the mortgage interest tax deduction, and yet that is a monster regressive tax penalty on everyone who does not buy a house. It is a mortgage mandate.

There are over a trillion dollars of such government social engineering mandates in our tax code. You are punished with higher taxes for not having kids, or for not buying the right kind of refrigerator.

So a tax penalty for not buying insurance is not even a leap. It's the next obvious step.

The American motto: Gimme, gimme, gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it.

But as the old saying goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right." The health insurance mandate is wrong. The problem is that many who are opposed to it are hypocrites. You can tell by their support for tax expenditures. They defend them with the same rationale as someone who supports food stamps or ObamaPhones. And tax expenditures are a much, much bigger cost to us than food stamps or ObamaPhones.

you are casting a moral judgement [the ACA is wrong].... I do not share that judgement and my position counts also....

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Yeah. I get that you're not seeing that. But you need to open your eyes. ACA takes away the most fundamental right we have as consumers: the right to say "no" to a product or service when we don't think it's worth the cost.

You can say no and pay the tax penalty but you can say no...If you are a conscientious objector in Times of war you can say No and go to jail or serve as a medic ..its not a radical departure from heretofore practices...

Yep.

You can say no to buying a house, but you will pay a tax penalty.

You can say no to a drug test but you will not get the job...

you can say No to auto insurance but you cannot drive legally ..

you can say No to a road side sobriety test but you wil have an automatic licence suspension

You can say no to ultrasound but you wil not get access to your female reproductive health care


ACA simply does not break any new grounds when it comes to coercion...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I agree with g5000. NO way can anyone force anyone to buy a commercial product.

If the States Attorney Generals had any brains they would band together and bring it back to the SC.

Tax may ass. Its forcing folks to buy a commercial product.

That was already litigated all the way to the SCOTUS....

 

[Claudette]

It wouldn't be the first thing ever brought BACK to the SC and sure as hell wouldn't be the last.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

there is no encroachment to my rights in the ACA law

The ACA is forcing everyone to buy a commercial product.

nor do I see how it encroaches on anyone else

I have to pay for someone else's insurance subsidy.

The Left never sees a problem with taking more money from someone else. Never. "Problem? What problem? I see no problem..."

The Right has no problems cutting prepaid benefits we have already monetized through payroll taxes...they want to cut benefits to finance tax cuts for the wealthy...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

It wouldn't be the first thing ever brought BACK to the SC and sure as hell wouldn't be the last.

Then do that rather than shut down the Government....

 

[dblack]

The Government already has a right to come busting into your home with long guns if someone told them you have marijuana...the Govt can make one pee in a cup at will...that train left the station some time back and I recall the right wing cheering,,,there is no encroachment to my rights in the ACA law nor do I see how it encroaches on anyone else...or better said how it encroaches in a radical new way on We the People...

Yeah. I get that you're not seeing that. But you need to open your eyes. ACA takes away the most fundamental right we have as consumers: the right to say "no" to a product or service when we don't think it's worth the cost.

You can say no and pay the tax penalty but you can say no...If you are a conscientious objector in Times of war you can say No and go to jail or serve as a medic ..its not a radical departure from heretofore practices...

That's completely specious. You can always choose to defy the law. The question is, what choices should be punished by government.

 

[dblack]

You can say no and pay the tax penalty but you can say no...If you are a conscientious objector in Times of war you can say No and go to jail or serve as a medic ..its not a radical departure from heretofore practices...

Yep.

You can say no to buying a house, but you will pay a tax penalty.

You can say no to a drug test but you will not get the job...

you can say No to auto insurance but you cannot drive legally ..

you can say No to a road side sobriety test but you wil have an automatic licence suspension

You can say no to ultrasound but you wil not get access to your female reproductive health care


ACA simply does not break any new grounds when it comes to coercion...

True enough. That was the point on which Roberts based his decision. But it's ground that was corrupt to begin with. Congress has no business forcing us to support their corporate friends.

 

[Freewill]

Health care for everyone is everyone's concern...Health is not the same as driving an auto...

Why is it "everyone's" concern?

Its a pay me now or pay me later issue. Its certainly connected with domestic tranquility and lastly it has to do with what living as a Society and nation as people with shared interest and concerns is all about...I do not want to live in a Mad Max society where Darwinistic survival is the lowest common denominator..

Because of health care we do not have domestic tranquility? Really? And we have that now by forcing people to do what they do not wish to do? It is one thing to make it affordable and available but it is really another thing to make it mandatory. Affordable and available who could be against that? Expensive and mandatory who can be for that situation? Only those who are on the receiving side of the equation.

Think about the risk someone takes without insurance. If they get sick and need extensive treatment they lose all their wealth. So those with a little bit to lose will obtain health care usually through groups that companies set up. Which has worked fine for a good many years. I know of no one who didn't receive health care if they needed it. Some had to pay for a check up or a test but that is cheaper then what I pay for my health care. If I had absolutely nothing health care would not be a big concern to me.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Yeah. I get that you're not seeing that. But you need to open your eyes. ACA takes away the most fundamental right we have as consumers: the right to say "no" to a product or service when we don't think it's worth the cost.

You can say no and pay the tax penalty but you can say no...If you are a conscientious objector in Times of war you can say No and go to jail or serve as a medic ..its not a radical departure from heretofore practices...

That's completely specious. You can always choose to defy the law. The question is, what choices should be punished by government.

The choice of no insurance means if you need health care the public may have to pay if you show up at an Emergency Room. That is why there is a coercive aspect to that law...its not for the hell of it...

 

[Vox]

The real winners are the big pockets - the insurance companies.

The losers are those who have chosen gay marriage over their own financial safety - and they are about to get a big price tag surprise

you get what you vote for or let others vote for you.

 

[dblack]

You can say no and pay the tax penalty but you can say no...If you are a conscientious objector in Times of war you can say No and go to jail or serve as a medic ..its not a radical departure from heretofore practices...

That's completely specious. You can always choose to defy the law. The question is, what choices should be punished by government.

The choice of no insurance means if you need health care the public may have to pay if you show up at an Emergency Room. That is why there is a coercive aspect to that law...its not for the hell of it...

If EMTALA is the problem, then we need to re-address EMTALA. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[g5000]

The real winners are the Democrats. The Republicans chose to do nothing about the healthcare cost problem when they had the chance to help tens of millions of people.

The Democrats telegraphed over and over and over what they would do if they got the chance, and the GOP totally ignored it.

Now those tens of millions who will get insurance (the actual winners in all of this) are going to vote Democratic.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Newby]

The real winners are the Democrats. The Republicans chose to do nothing about the healthcare cost problem when they had the chance to help tens of millions of people.

The Democrats telegraphed over and over and over what they would do if they got the chance, and the GOP totally ignored it.

Now those tens of millions who will get insurance (the actual winners in all of this) are going to vote Democratic.

They were already voting democrat anyway, so what's the difference? Everyone in Washington is sold out to commercial interests and big money, they each just sell a different pack of lies to tell you it's for your own good. When are people going to wise up and demand real government reform and realize it's us versus them, not D vs R.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The real winners are the Democrats. The Republicans chose to do nothing about the healthcare cost problem when they had the chance to help tens of millions of people.

The Democrats telegraphed over and over and over what they would do if they got the chance, and the GOP totally ignored it.

Now those tens of millions who will get insurance (the actual winners in all of this) are going to vote Democratic.

I myself have health care insurance independent of the ACA so I will not be a winner as you define it here. As an American I am gratified that family, friends neighbors, loved ones, strangers and adversaries will all have another health care option/venue...

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The real winners are the Democrats. The Republicans chose to do nothing about the healthcare cost problem when they had the chance to help tens of millions of people.

The Democrats telegraphed over and over and over what they would do if they got the chance, and the GOP totally ignored it.

Now those tens of millions who will get insurance (the actual winners in all of this) are going to vote Democratic.

They were already voting democrat anyway, so what's the difference? Everyone in Washington is sold out to commercial interests and big money, they each just sell a different pack of lies to tell you it's for your own good. When are people going to wise up and demand real government reform and realize it's us versus them, not D vs R.

That's completely specious. You can always choose to defy the law. The question is, what choices should be punished by government.

The choice of no insurance means if you need health care the public may have to pay if you show up at an Emergency Room. That is why there is a coercive aspect to that law...its not for the hell of it...

If EMTALA is the problem, then we need to re-address EMTALA. Two wrongs don't make a right.

EMTALA is not the problem...it is an imperfect attempt to deal with the real problem which is people financially alienated from access to Health care services...apart from that our health care costs more but delivers less than existent service delivery models in the world...we need to address that...