SCOTUS to rule on Obamacare sometime this week

[3rdnlng]

This is what I find ridiculous about America and Americans:

 

"Polls show that while the majority of Americans are opposed to "ObamaCare", AKA: "RomneyCare v.2.0," as a whole, and in particular, the individual mandate, they support many provisions of the bill, which include forcing insurance companies to insure those with pre-existing conditions and that individuals can stay on their parent's health-care coverage until the reach the age of 26."

 

WTF gives? Basically people want everything... YET, they don't want to pay for it! Ain't Americans great!

 

:wallbash:

 

Anyway... I like the 2.5% of gross adjusted income... Right now I am paying double out of pocket, around 5%.

 

Tables are turned... Now the conservatives want to freeload...

 

Wow, $156,000 a year isn't bad for a toll collector.

[ExiledInIllinois]

This will go the way of the CCD... Everybody will love it... But come out and say they hate it!... Ain't America great! Give me the benny's, but don't send me the bill! Get sick: "Where's my doctor!" While healthy: "I'm not being told what to do!"

 

Wow, $156,000 a year isn't bad for a toll collector.

HA! ROFLMAO! The wife is the CEO, bread winner in the family!

[3rdnlng]

This will go the way of the CCD... Everybody will love it... But come out and say they hate it!... Ain't America great! Give me the benny's, but don't send me the bill! Get sick: "Where's my doctor!" While healthy: "I'm not being told what to do!"

 

 

HA! ROFLMAO! The wife is the CEO, bread winner in the family!

 

 

Why laugh? You said you pay 5% towards healthcare. You pay $300 every 2 weeks. $300x26=$7800. $7800 divided by .05 = $156,000. Nice gig.

[Doc]

This is what I find ridiculous about America and Americans:

 

"Polls show that while the majority of Americans are opposed to "ObamaCare", AKA: "RomneyCare v.2.0," as a whole, and in particular, the individual mandate, they support many provisions of the bill, which include forcing insurance companies to insure those with pre-existing conditions and that individuals can stay on their parent's health-care coverage until the reach the age of 26."

 

WTF gives? Basically people want everything... YET, they don't want to pay for it! Ain't Americans great!

 

:wallbash:

 

Anyway... I like the 2.5% of gross adjusted income... Right now I am paying double out of pocket, around 5%.

 

Tables are turned... Now the conservatives want to freeload...

You're just figuring this out now? That's how libs have lived for decades now. Now the cons want to do the same. Can you blame them? Gaming the system.

It most certainly DOES NOT end freeloading... But, at least we can keep track of the freeloaders (individuals and companies) via the IRS.

 

Will the publish the names publically the ones that pay the tax?

 

This will go the way of the CCD... Everybody will love it... But come out and say they hate... Ain't America great! Give me the benny's, but don't send me the bill!

Great, so they'll keep track of the freeloaders. And then do nothing, like they do with the freeloaders who use their EBT funds on cigs, alcohol, casinos, and strip clubs.

[Doc]

Tort reform, HSA's/high-deductible insurance plans, mandatory checkups, competing across state lines, revising COBRA to allow people to keep paying their premiums until they find a new job and being allowed to pay the same premium as the others at their new jobs, creation of a high-risk government exchange for the estimated 12.6M with pre-existing conditions, and maybe having medical companies (pharma, equipment, etc.) pay a percentage of their profits back.

Let me add that these are just reforms that treat the symptoms, not the disease. Since we apparently can be forced to do anything under the guise of taxation, the commerce clause, or what's necessary and proper, it's high time we're forced to live a certain way. And if we're going to add trillions to the debt just to insure 12.6M people and save people money so they can pay for their wants, I say we start providing good food, housing, and clothing to everyone. After all, the money's coming from the evil rich people, right?

[Juror#8]

Your asinine and pompous opinions have been met with exactly the type of response they deserve.

 

Feel free to keep stating gems like doing something is better than doing nothing. It's that kind of stupidity that keeps this place going.

 

1912.

 

That is how long a President has been suggesting doing something about healthcare in this country. 1 century. 100 years. A Bill. A Stack. A C-note. A Benny. Whatever.

 

Why are you so averse to nuance - is it that you're afraid of it or is it because you're unsure how to spell it?

 

In MULTIPLE threads, I've discussed why this legislation is a good thing. I agree with the ACA, PRINCIPALLY, as a policy measure. I agree with both the scope and intention of the ACA. I also believe that it is an initiative that can be built upon to create a better end product. To the extent that the "some thing" was started, I agree with that too. But not at the expense of the "some thing," in my mind, being a "good thing." The ACA just happens to inhabit both realms.

 

For you to act like my agreement with the ACA begins and ends with doing "some thing" is disingenuous at best. At worst it is knowingly false and misleading as it is in direct contradiction with ACTUAL POSTS by me that exist on this forum lauding particular policies within the scope of the ACA.

 

You don't agree, fine. So noted. Sadly, you're not adding anything that can be addressed in any conventionally logical way and your posts are replete with declaratives and insults. Is that the value that you can be expected to add to the debate? Truthfully, beyond your name - which clearly alludes to some 70s-era gay porn icon of yours - you're completely unmemorable. Your posts are a joke.

 

So how about this sweetheart, if you want to talk about specific policies, go for it - throw out the gauntlet. However, if you want to spam post and type insults that get lost in language filter symbols because you're mad that a Supreme Court decision didn't go your way while others happen to be satisfied with a legislation designed to fundamentally affect a large segment of the population in a very beneficial way, go back to mining male asses.

 

Either way, whether you want to add value to this debate (there are always others who enjoy spirited conversation and who add substance to their contributions) or you want to pillow bite (I agree that you were born that way and fully support your right to marry a dude and support your partner financially), it's of no consequence to me.

 

We can have that policy discussion as well if you'd like.

 

1912.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Juror#8

[Joe Miner]

1912.

 

That is how long a President has been suggesting doing something about healthcare in this country. 1 century. 100 years. A Bill. A Stack. A C-note. A Benny. Whatever.

 

Why are you so averse to nuance - is it that you're afraid of it or is it because you're unsure how to spell it?

 

In MULTIPLE threads, I've discussed why this legislation is a good thing. I agree with the ACA, PRINCIPALLY, as a policy measure. I agree with both the scope and intention of the ACA. I also believe that it is an initiative that can be built upon to create a better end product. To the extent that the "some thing" was started, I agree with that too. But not at the expense of the "some thing," in my mind, being a "good thing." The ACA just happens to inhabit both realms.

 

For you to act like my agreement with the ACA begins and ends with doing "some thing" is disingenuous at best. At worst it is knowingly false and misleading as it is in direct contradiction with ACTUAL POSTS by me that exist on this forum lauding particular policies within the scope of the ACA.

 

You don't agree, fine. So noted. Sadly, you're not adding anything that can be addressed in any conventionally logical way and your posts are replete with declaratives and insults. Is that the value that you can be expected to add to the debate? Truthfully, beyond your name - which clearly alludes to some 70s-era gay porn icon of yours - you're completely unmemorable. Your posts are a joke.

 

So how about this sweetheart, if you want to talk about specific policies, go for it - throw out the gauntlet. However, if you want to spam post and type insults that get lost in language filter symbols because you're mad that a Supreme Court decision didn't go your way while others happen to be satisfied with a legislation designed to fundamentally affect a large segment of the population in a very beneficial way, go back to mining male asses.

 

Either way, whether you want to add value to this debate (there are always others who enjoy spirited conversation and who add substance to their contributions) or you want to pillow bite (I agree that you were born that way and fully support your right to marry a dude and support your partner financially), it's of no consequence to me.

 

We can have that policy discussion as well if you'd like.

 

1912.

 

So now you have a behemoth of a bill that few, probably including you, have read completely, and you're excited because it provides a framework that can be improved?

 

And you called me naive?

 

Maybe when you take some time off from being an imbecile here on ppp you can look up what some of the words you can so easily spell mean.

 

Call me gay all you want, but if you truly believe the pompous **** you post I pity the people in your life that have to deal with your stupidity on a daily basis.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Joe Miner

[B-Man]

In 1946 the National Mental Health Act was passed, as was the Hospital Survey and Construction Act, or Hill-Burton Act. In 1951 the IRS declared group premiums paid by employers as a tax-deductible business expense, which solidified the third-party insurance companies' place as primary providers of access to health care in the United States.

 

 

The Medicare program was established by legislation signed into law on July 30, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson

 

 

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) to give some employees the ability to continue health insurance coverage after leaving employment.

 

 

 

2003 President George W.Bush signed into law the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act which included a prescription drug plan for elderly and disabled Americans.

 

 

 

.

Edited June 29, 2012 by B-Man

[3rdnlng]

This is less than tacky:

 

 

 

 

No respect for the office or opposition. Our first gangsta president.

[Doc]

This is less than tacky:

 

 

 

 

No respect for the office or opposition. Our first gangsta president.

He's right thought. It is a Big F#$@ing Disaster.

 

So now you have a behemoth of a bill that few, probably including you, have read completely, and you're excited because it provides a framework that can be improved?

 

And you called me naive?

 

Maybe when you take some time off from being an imbecile here on ppp you can look up what some of the words you can so easily spell mean.

 

Call me gay all you want, but if you truly believe the pompous **** you post I pity the people in your life that have to deal with your stupidity on a daily basis.

Come on! It only needs another 1,500 more pages before it becomes perfect.

[Juror#8]

So now you have a behemoth of a bill that few, probably including you, have read completely, and you're excited because it provides a framework that can be improved?

 

And you called me naive?

 

Maybe when you take some time off from being an imbecile here on ppp you can look up what some of the words you can so easily spell mean.

 

Call me gay all you want, but if you truly believe the pompous **** you post I pity the people in your life that have to deal with your stupidity on a daily basis.

 

Let's revisit an instructive post:

 

"You don't agree, fine. So noted. Sadly, you're not adding anything that can be addressed in any conventionally logical way and your posts are replete with declaratives and insults. Is that the value that you can be expected to add to the debate? Truthfully, beyond your name - which clearly alludes to some 70s-era gay porn icon of yours - you're completely unmemorable. Your posts are a joke.

 

So how about this sweetheart, if you want to talk about specific policies, go for it - throw out the gauntlet. However, if you want to spam post and type insults that get lost in language filter symbols because you're mad that a Supreme Court decision didn't go your way while others happen to be satisfied with a legislation designed to fundamentally affect a large segment of the population in a very beneficial way, go back to mining male asses."

 

Insincerely,

 

Me

 

Call me gay all you want, but if you truly believe the pompous **** you post I pity the people in your life that have to deal with your stupidity on a daily basis.

 

You've conducted yourself in an effeminate way. I've just continued to emasculate you. I want you to understand your essence more intimately so you can be a better B word for your husband and your entire pathetic posterity.

 

By the way, you started this **** throwing spectacle (post# 229). I wasn't addressing you, you weren't the person with whom I was communicating - yet you saw fit to interject with BS and insults. Now you want criticize the tone of the conversation ("pompous," and such).

 

You !@#$ing hypocrite.

 

You're exactly what I've said you are - an unmemorable reject. You're a charlatan.

 

So now you have a behemoth of a bill that few, probably including you, have read completely, and you're excited because it provides a framework that can be improved?

 

Have you been following this conversation on these forums or are you just fashionably late. Can you read?

 

I just mentioned in a previous post that there were beneficial POLICY angles to the ACA (in my estimation). Yet you keep trending back to this idea of improvement. You predicating my support on "improvement" presupposes that there is nothing else that I like about it. I've told you multiple times that the evolutionary angle is secondary and ancillary to my support for the legislation as a motus of beneficial domestic policy.

 

What about that simple sentence escapes you?

 

Here it is again:

 

"...the evolutionary angle is secondary and ancillary to my support for the legislation as a motus of beneficial domestic policy."

 

I can put it in terms that you can more easily understand so that you don't retreat to the evolutionary angle for lodging and comfort again:

 

ACA Bill now, me like, good policy, good for people, goods much gooder than bads. now. ok.

 

Does it really upset you to know that people disagree with you? If not, "why you mad?"

 

Now...if you'd like to discuss the gooooooder policies, we can. You can redeem yourself for the bs and the off-topic, and the insults. You started em. If you don't like em, end em. Get to what you really want to dispute...which surrounds my support for the policies and why.

 

Go.

 

1912 btw.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Juror#8

[3rdnlng]

More official tackiness:

 

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-campaign-selling-bfd-health-care-t-shirts/

 

 

Politics

 

Obama Campaign Selling ‘BFD’ Health Care T-Shirts

Posted on March 24, 2012 at 8:25am by Madeleine Morgenstern Print »Email »

Comments (305)

Image source: barackobama.com

What do you think of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul?

 

According to his re-election campaign, it’s a “BFD.”

 

That’s the message on a new T-shirt for sale on Obama’s campaign site: “Health Reform — STILL a BFD.”

 

It refers to Vice President Joe Biden’s famous reference to the Affordable Care Act as a “big f–king deal” after Obama signed it into law two years ago.

 

“Stand with President Obama by reminding your friends and family that health care reform is still a BFD,” a description of the shirt says.

 

It’s selling for $30.

[DC Tom]

More official tackiness:

 

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-campaign-selling-bfd-health-care-t-shirts/

 

 

Politics

 

Obama Campaign Selling ‘BFD’ Health Care T-Shirts

Posted on March 24, 2012 at 8:25am by Madeleine Morgenstern Print »Email »

Comments (305)

Image source: barackobama.com

What do you think of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul?

 

According to his re-election campaign, it’s a “BFD.”

 

That’s the message on a new T-shirt for sale on Obama’s campaign site: “Health Reform — STILL a BFD.”

 

It refers to Vice President Joe Biden’s famous reference to the Affordable Care Act as a “big f–king deal” after Obama signed it into law two years ago.

 

“Stand with President Obama by reminding your friends and family that health care reform is still a BFD,” a description of the shirt says.

 

It’s selling for $30.

 

I never thought I'd pine for the days when Cheney was shooting lawyers in the face...

[3rdnlng]

I never thought I'd pine for the days when Cheney was shooting lawyers in the face...

 

I'm no prude, but c'mon, from the official Obama campaign store? It shows badly on the president.

[Joe Miner]

Let's revisit an instructive post:

 

"You don't agree, fine. So noted. Sadly, you're not adding anything that can be addressed in any conventionally logical way and your posts are replete with declaratives and insults. Is that the value that you can be expected to add to the debate? Truthfully, beyond your name - which clearly alludes to some 70s-era gay porn icon of yours - you're completely unmemorable. Your posts are a joke.

 

So how about this sweetheart, if you want to talk about specific policies, go for it - throw out the gauntlet. However, if you want to spam post and type insults that get lost in language filter symbols because you're mad that a Supreme Court decision didn't go your way while others happen to be satisfied with a legislation designed to fundamentally affect a large segment of the population in a very beneficial way, go back to mining male asses."

 

Insincerely,

 

Me

 

 

 

You've conducted yourself in an effeminate way. I've just continued to emasculate you. I want you to understand your essence more intimately so you can be a better B word for your husband and your entire pathetic posterity.

 

By the way, you started this **** throwing spectacle (post# 229). I wasn't addressing you, you weren't the person with whom I was communicating - yet you saw fit to interject with BS and insults. Now you want criticize the tone of the conversation ("pompous," and such).

 

You !@#$ing hypocrite.

 

You're exactly what I've said you are - an unmemorable reject. You're a charlatan.

 

 

 

Have you been following this conversation on these forums or are you just fashionably late. Can you read?

 

I just mentioned in a previous post that there were beneficial POLICY angles to the ACA (in my estimation). Yet you keep trending back to this idea of improvement. You predicating my support on "improvement" presupposes that there is nothing else that I like about it. I've told you multiple times that the evolutionary angle is secondary and ancillary to my support for the legislation as a motus of beneficial domestic policy.

 

What about that simple sentence escapes you?

 

Here it is again:

 

"...the evolutionary angle is secondary and ancillary to my support for the legislation as a motus of beneficial domestic policy."

 

I can put it in terms that you can more easily understand so that you don't retreat to the evolutionary angle for lodging and comfort again:

 

ACA Bill now, me like, good policy, good for people, goods much gooder than bads. now. ok.

 

Does it really upset you to know that people disagree with you? If not, "why you mad?"

 

Now...if you'd like to discuss the gooooooder policies, we can. You can redeem yourself for the bs and the off-topic, and the insults. You started em. If you don't like em, end em. Get to what you really want to dispute...which surrounds my support for the policies and why.

 

Go.

 

1912 btw.

 

You have serious issues.

 

Might want to check into the homophobia.

 

And being able to read us good. Now you can start working on comprehension.

 

If you were worth having a discussion with I might try it. But so far my responses are a reflection of the level of conversation I wish to have with someone like you.

[UConn James]

Let me add that these are just reforms that treat the symptoms, not the disease. Since we apparently can be forced to do anything under the guise of taxation, the commerce clause, or what's necessary and proper, it's high time we're forced to live a certain way. And if we're going to add trillions to the debt just to insure 12.6M people and save people money so they can pay for their wants, I say we start providing good food, housing, and clothing to everyone. After all, the money's coming from the evil rich people, right?

 

Actually, this writer says Roberts' decision cut the Commerce Clause right across the hips.

 

American Thinker: The Chief Justice Done Good by Dov Fischer, adjunct professor of law at Loyola Law School

 

There is now a formal United States Supreme Court opinion on the books, overdue by nearly a century, holding that the federal government may not wield the Commerce Clause to impose on American citizens the obligation to buy health insurance or anything else we do not want. An American cannot be compelled by federal mandate to eat or even to buy a proverbial stalk of broccoli. As a kosher consumer, the federal government cannot wield that clause to impose on me an obligation to purchase non-kosher food supplements. The rules guiding lower-court wrestling matches over federal power to invade Americans' private lives now have been reset remarkably by Chief Justice Roberts. Few today notice what he has done. Long after many of us are gone, this 5-4 opinion finally setting limits on the reach of the Commerce Clause will continue to affect American lives and protect private citizens from Washington's intrusions.

...

Instead, even as he cast a powerful vote to rein in the Commerce Clause as our Founding Fathers intended for it to be applied against federal intrusiveness, Chief Justice Roberts returned Obamacare front-and-center back into the November elections debate. Defining it for what it really is -- a new, enormous federal tax on at least four million Americans (Slip op. at 37) -- the Chief Justice has lobbed a fat hanging curveball for conservatives to clobber. The ObamaCare tax does not apply to those who presently are untaxed, and it will not apply to the more wealthy, who will be excused because they carry health insurance anyway. Rather, the President who promised no new taxes against the middle class conclusively has been "outed" by the Chief Justice as having imposed the biggest tax on middle-class Americans in a generation.

 

One can argue that the hundred-year era of citing Wicker and slipping things in under Commerce is now largely over, and that these measures will have to be called what they are --- TAXES. Let's see how many pols touch that third rail.

 

WRT the second quoted graph, no matter how many Democrats stay away from the DNC in North Carolina, anyone running for Congress with a D behind their name is irrevocably tied to Obama, Obamacare and the 'I'm only going to eat the rich!' promise that every tax-and-spender soon breaks.

[Doc]

Actually, this writer says Roberts' decision cut the Commerce Clause right across the hips.

 

American Thinker: The Chief Justice Done Good by Dov Fischer, adjunct professor of law at Loyola Law School

 

 

 

One can argue that the hundred-year era of citing Wicker and slipping things in under Commerce is now largely over, and that these measures will have to be called what they are --- TAXES. Let's see how many pols touch that third rail.

 

WRT the second quoted graph, no matter how many Democrats stay away from the DNC in North Carolina, anyone running for Congress with a D behind their name is irrevocably tied to Obama, Obamacare and the 'I'm only going to eat the rich!' promise that every tax-and-spender soon breaks.

I've been saying all along that this wouldn't survive under the Commerce Clause and thus would be invalidated. I didn't think that Roberts would create the "tax" argument, when it was never called a tax in the first place.

[Juror#8]

You have serious issues.

 

Might want to check into the homophobia.

 

And being able to read us good. Now you can start working on comprehension.

 

If you were worth having a discussion with I might try it. But so far my responses are a reflection of the level of conversation I wish to have with someone like you.

 

Typical.

 

What you're really saying is: You're not ready to hang with the wolves. You'll flirt, but you can't go 12 rounds with Ali. You're not intellectually ready at this point to entertain a conversation of this particular moment cogently and with the level of detail and sophistication that it deserves. You're watching and learning, getting your "sea legs." You admire me, but don't know how to say it. You print my posts off and use them to inspire sonnets that you one day hope to publish in some esoteric journal, only distributed in Pacific Northwestern states, enjoyed by a readership of less than 20,000, in a varying-demo market; subject matter: decidedly neo-Freudian.

 

You're afraid of the apes. They make you uneasy. You'll view from a distance.

 

Don't be scared. I'll let you study under my guidance.

 

I conquer.

[3rdnlng]

Typical.

 

What you're really saying is: You're not ready to hang with the wolves. You'll flirt, but you can't go 12 rounds with Ali. You're not intellectually ready at this point to entertain a conversation of this particular moment cogently and with the level of detail and sophistication that it deserves. You're watching and learning, getting your "sea legs." You admire me, but don't know how to say it. You print my posts off and use them to inspire sonnets that you one day hope to publish in some esoteric journal, only distributed in Pacific Northwestern states, enjoyed by a readership of less than 20,000, in a varying-demo market; subject matter: decidedly neo-Freudian.

 

You're afraid of the apes. They make you uneasy. You'll view from a distance.

 

Don't be scared. I'll let you study under my guidance.

 

I conquer.

 

 

I'll go 12 rounds with Ali---now.

[UConn James]

Typical.

 

What you're really saying is: You're not ready to hang with the wolves. You'll flirt, but you can't go 12 rounds with Ali. You're not intellectually ready at this point to entertain a conversation of this particular moment cogently and with the level of detail and sophistication that it deserves. You're watching and learning, getting your "sea legs." You admire me, but don't know how to say it. You print my posts off and use them to inspire sonnets that you one day hope to publish in some esoteric journal, only distributed in Pacific Northwestern states, enjoyed by a readership of less than 20,000, in a varying-demo market; subject matter: decidedly neo-Freudian.

 

You're afraid of the apes. They make you uneasy. You'll view from a distance.

 

Don't be scared. I'll let you study under my guidance.

 

I conquer.

 

Can someone make some popcorn?

 

Looks like someone is itching to get banned so he can start using the new handle he created ~6 months ago.

Edited June 29, 2012 by UConn James