Supreme Court upholds Obamacare


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 35 · Next
Author Message
Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1753
Credit: 3,621,944
RAC: 7,933
United States
Message 1253002 - Posted: 29 Jun 2012, 0:53:42 UTC - in response to Message 1252997.

Guy, you have been the receiver of a single payer system your entire adult life. I do not believe it ruined your life, in fact it probably made it better. If it so horrible why did you endure it for so many decades?
____________

Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1753
Credit: 3,621,944
RAC: 7,933
United States
Message 1253007 - Posted: 29 Jun 2012, 1:25:57 UTC - in response to Message 1253005.
Last modified: 29 Jun 2012, 1:27:23 UTC

ID, I thought that question was answered in 1865. The Federal Govt. won!
____________

Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1753
Credit: 3,621,944
RAC: 7,933
United States
Message 1253023 - Posted: 29 Jun 2012, 2:13:01 UTC - in response to Message 1253018.
Last modified: 29 Jun 2012, 2:14:33 UTC

ID, I thought that question was answered in 1865. The Federal Govt. won!


Perhaps you don't understand the Constitution or the founders. The right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the chase of happiness? Yes, slavery was tossed out for freedom.

Just so we could be enslaved by debt....

We cannot afford this health care system. We can't afford what was on the books before it either....

ID, you asked a question, "It's about who is to be master, thats all." Your post does not address the subject.
____________

Profile soft^spirit
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 6374
Credit: 28,216,480
RAC: 183
United States
Message 1253028 - Posted: 29 Jun 2012, 2:33:10 UTC

we also can not afford to have millions of Americans without a reasonable chance at health care. We have tried it, clogged up emergency rooms as a result.

People deserve better than that.

We all do deserve hope, and change.


____________

Janice

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 11,463,071
RAC: 5,369
United States
Message 1253031 - Posted: 29 Jun 2012, 2:47:02 UTC - in response to Message 1253023.

Oh my -- not that is really unexpected...


[/quote]
ID, you asked a question, "It's about who is to be master, thats all." Your post does not address the subject.[/quote]

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1253035 - Posted: 29 Jun 2012, 2:57:08 UTC - in response to Message 1252937.

Gary, this should be a very large boon for the insurance industry.

Interesting way the stock market reacted to the news. Hospitals went up, health care insurance went down. To read that it means that Hospitals will now have carte blanche to raise rates through the ceiling. It also reads that insurers will loose their profitable contracts with employers as they all cancel their plans. So with everyone getting the voucher, how much will income tax have to go up?

____________

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1253037 - Posted: 29 Jun 2012, 3:02:07 UTC - in response to Message 1252960.

Personally, many people I know, and myself included, will be better off with Obamacare, vs our private insurers.

Ex, you did understand that Obamacare is private insurance didn't you?

Yes.

But IF my employer does not/did not offer insurance, I would be eligible for vouchered (income-proportionate) private insurance. NOT the same thing as my overpriced 1/3rd of my gross pay family plan.

Who is going to pay for your voucher? You are. And add in an administrative expense on top.

Don't be surprised if Obamacare runs 50% to 75% of your income.

When you have pro-business lobby against the creation of a huge private business (insurance) you should think long and hard about that ...

____________

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 11,463,071
RAC: 5,369
United States
Message 1253043 - Posted: 29 Jun 2012, 3:18:47 UTC - in response to Message 1253037.

Actually Gary, you make another argument for single payer -- 'administrative costs' for Medicare run well under 10%. Administrative costs for private health insurance companies have run over 20%.

And bets on your 50% to 75% number.

BULLETIN

This just in:

Breaking News: Conservatives planning to leave the US, but can't find any wealthy Western countries without universal health care.

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,565,580
RAC: 1,263
United States
Message 1253044 - Posted: 29 Jun 2012, 3:21:20 UTC - in response to Message 1253035.
Last modified: 29 Jun 2012, 3:22:09 UTC

...So with everyone getting the voucher, how much will income tax have to go up?


Income tax will go up less than one would pay for insurance through their employer.


[Edit: ^what Barry said. He puts things into more specific terms than I can.]
____________
-Dave #2


3.2.0-33

Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 1753
Credit: 3,621,944
RAC: 7,933
United States
Message 1253049 - Posted: 29 Jun 2012, 3:50:08 UTC - in response to Message 1253035.

Gary, this should be a very large boon for the insurance industry.

Interesting way the stock market reacted to the news. Hospitals went up, health care insurance went down. To read that it means that Hospitals will now have carte blanche to raise rates through the ceiling. It also reads that insurers will loose their profitable contracts with employers as they all cancel their plans. So with everyone getting the voucher, how much will income tax have to go up?

Gary, just a point of order. Since when has the stock market reacted rationally? It pretty much operates as a ponzi scheem, IMO.
____________

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1253050 - Posted: 29 Jun 2012, 3:53:15 UTC - in response to Message 1253043.

Actually Gary, you make another argument for single payer -- 'administrative costs' for Medicare run well under 10%. Administrative costs for private health insurance companies have run over 20%.

Obamacare isn't Medicare, it is private health insurance ...

____________

BarryAZ
Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 01
Posts: 2580
Credit: 11,463,071
RAC: 5,369
United States
Message 1253051 - Posted: 29 Jun 2012, 3:55:07 UTC - in response to Message 1253050.

Understood, as I noted, another argument for single payer.


Actually Gary, you make another argument for single payer -- 'administrative costs' for Medicare run well under 10%. Administrative costs for private health insurance companies have run over 20%.

Obamacare isn't Medicare, it is private health insurance ...

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 11732
Credit: 5,969,877
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1253054 - Posted: 29 Jun 2012, 3:59:16 UTC - in response to Message 1253049.

Gary, this should be a very large boon for the insurance industry.

Interesting way the stock market reacted to the news. Hospitals went up, health care insurance went down. To read that it means that Hospitals will now have carte blanche to raise rates through the ceiling. It also reads that insurers will loose their profitable contracts with employers as they all cancel their plans. So with everyone getting the voucher, how much will income tax have to go up?

Gary, just a point of order. Since when has the stock market reacted rationally? It pretty much operates as a ponzi scheem, IMO.

A market is a very good at predicting the future, not 100%, but amazingly good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction_market read the footnotes ...


____________

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2901
Credit: 6,276,218
RAC: 2,195
United States
Message 1253077 - Posted: 29 Jun 2012, 6:37:59 UTC
Last modified: 29 Jun 2012, 6:39:56 UTC

So now the Supremes have confirmed that: Everyone will be made to buy health insurance. This is somewhat logical since Congress has determined that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have health insurance. Not everyone wants or needs health insurance however, so if you don't buy health insurance you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

Let's look at this another way. The Federal government owns lots of GM stock, so based on today's Sup.Ct. decision the following could legally (constitutionally) take place: Everyone will be made to buy (a GM vehicle). This is somewhat logical since Congress [could determine] that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have (a GM vehicle). Not everyone wants or needs (a GM vehicle) however, so if you don't buy (a GM vehicle) you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

At least in the second scenario the value of GM stock should rise nicely.

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,565,580
RAC: 1,263
United States
Message 1253080 - Posted: 29 Jun 2012, 6:50:23 UTC - in response to Message 1253077.
Last modified: 29 Jun 2012, 6:51:01 UTC

So now the Supremes have confirmed that: Everyone will be made to buy health insurance. This is somewhat logical since Congress has determined that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have health insurance. Not everyone wants or needs health insurance however, so if you don't buy health insurance you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

Let's look at this another way. The Federal government owns lots of GM stock, so based on today's Sup.Ct. decision the following could legally (constitutionally) take place: Everyone will be made to buy (a GM vehicle). This is somewhat logical since Congress [could determine] that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have (a GM vehicle). Not everyone wants or needs (a GM vehicle) however, so if you don't buy (a GM vehicle) you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

At least in the second scenario the value of GM stock should rise nicely.


But in the first scenario, as we've already seen, hospital stocks will rise nicely.

Either way, you pointed out my one issue with Obamacare. The positive I see here however, is perhaps more people will be in favor or a single payer system, as this whole thing comes to fruition.
____________
-Dave #2


3.2.0-33

Profile Qui-Gon
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 2901
Credit: 6,276,218
RAC: 2,195
United States
Message 1253083 - Posted: 29 Jun 2012, 6:56:56 UTC - in response to Message 1253080.

So now the Supremes have confirmed that: Everyone will be made to buy health insurance. This is somewhat logical since Congress has determined that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have health insurance. Not everyone wants or needs health insurance however, so if you don't buy health insurance you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

Let's look at this another way. The Federal government owns lots of GM stock, so based on today's Sup.Ct. decision the following could legally (constitutionally) take place: Everyone will be made to buy (a GM vehicle). This is somewhat logical since Congress [could determine] that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have (a GM vehicle). Not everyone wants or needs (a GM vehicle) however, so if you don't buy (a GM vehicle) you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

At least in the second scenario the value of GM stock should rise nicely.


But in the first scenario, as we've already seen, hospital stocks will rise nicely.

Either way, you pointed out my one issue with Obamacare. The positive I see here however, is perhaps more people will be in favor or a single payer system, as this whole thing comes to fruition.

The second scenario shows why the first is so abhorrent. If you think Congress can do the tax thing in the case of health insurance, then what limits do they have at all?

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,565,580
RAC: 1,263
United States
Message 1253086 - Posted: 29 Jun 2012, 7:02:44 UTC
Last modified: 29 Jun 2012, 7:07:37 UTC

It's a matter of opinion.

I feel health care should be a guaranteed right, in the US, as it is in other industrialized nations.

I don't think cars (or any material possessions) are "rights".

Your taxes (and mine) already are paying for government supplied services. Adding one service, no matter how big of a service, changes nothing about the way we are taxed.

You or I hopefully haven't needed/wanted to call the police. But if we did, they are there for us.


I don't think it's going to pan out as bad as some people think, nor do I believe Obamacare being passed will "open the floodgates" of socialism. The right, when talking about Obamacare, sound as priests did during the Salem trials. Much ado about nothing.
____________
-Dave #2


3.2.0-33

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 35 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

Copyright © 2014 University of California