- Thread starter
- #61
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?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Form over function.
Got it.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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?
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.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?
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?
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.
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
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.
Yes, I cited it in the other message.OPPD said:There is no religious based exemption from the individual mandate.
OPPD said: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.
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 9/11But they were "indirectly" ? LOL!
Obama asked for support on this bill to validate his presidency.OPPD said:Really? The ACA was for political "gain"? Are you fucking serious? The Democrats were terribly penalized politically for that move!
OPPD said: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.
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.)
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.
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 youd support.
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?
Yes, I cited it in the other message.
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?
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.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?
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.
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?
Gore failed to unite enough voters to get rid of Bush who got a second term.
That is what I am talking about.
How? By allowing hospitals to dump patients?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.
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.
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.
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?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.