birdog1960 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 So calling a duck a duck is an underhanded tactic if the duck's dad insists it's a swan? lets just agee it lacks class...an attribute most pols relinquish early in their careers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 He is suppose to uphold the Constitution, and he did not. Scalia is right, this allows the government to mandate anything, I hope you slaves love broccoli! This is a dereliction of duty Stephen White? Is that you? For those of you who also came from "the other board" I'm sure you know who I'm talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 lets just agee it lacks class...an attribute most pols relinquish early in their careers. "Obamatax" lacks class? The guy said he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making < $250k, and now his "victory" is that the SC upheld his signature legislation as a tax. Any politician or campaign manager who didn't play that for all it's worth would be derelict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 why does the right wing support a free loading system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 why does the right wing support a free loading system? Because they thought of it... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/20/romneycare-and-obamacare-can-you-tell-difference/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) Yeah RomneyTax! "Don't do as I do, do as I tell you." -From the Republican Mission Statement. Edited June 29, 2012 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Because they thought of it... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/20/romneycare-and-obamacare-can-you-tell-difference/ ...prime debate material, not that a significant majority of the electorate will digest it... maybe if they have a group of invalids in a series of ads about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 "Obamatax" lacks class? The guy said he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making < $250k, and now his "victory" is that the SC upheld his signature legislation as a tax. Any politician or campaign manager who didn't play that for all it's worth would be derelict. What it does is make acquiring healthcare easier, and it's a tax penalty if you choose not to. It's not a tax "increase." Now the truth is it will straight up be a .9% tax increase on people making over 200K a year in a few years. So that's your ammo, just to help you out. It is a tax increase of less than 1% on those making over 200K. Other than that, it makes acquiring health insurance and w/ a penalty if you refuse. And btw the tax penalty, is not much. At no point is it greater than the average cost of healthcare (or less than $700) that meets the standards and to be practical if you don't have healthcare under the new system it's going to be $1000ish a year or less unless you are a self destructive idiot. In any event we should move this entire debate to the other topic this topic title is embarrassing for all of America and yes...even by PPP standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Because they thought of it... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/20/romneycare-and-obamacare-can-you-tell-difference/ Congratulations to MDP for finally finding someone who can match his mental acumen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Because they thought of it... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/mar/20/romneycare-and-obamacare-can-you-tell-difference/ You really should have some knowledge of the subject before posting about it. I'll just add your name to the list of posters that show up here only to gloat. Romney didn't initiate the Massachusetts healthcare law. The legislature did. He worked with them to modify it. He got the best deal he could. It was going to be passed over his veto, but he worked with them. Now, as far as all you guys coming over here to gloat. You guys don't understand how this will energize the opposition to Obama. Yesterday's outcome was the worst thing for Obama's reelection. If the ACA had been struck down there would have been somewhat of a surge economically. Now things are going to either get worse or stay stagnant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) You play dense so well, one must wonder how much you're really playing. You play 'being my B word' so well; one wonders how much you're really playing. Edited June 29, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 You play 'being my B word' so well; one wonders how much you're really playing. Wow an intellectual and a tough guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 What it does is make acquiring healthcare easier, and it's a tax penalty if you choose not to. It's not a tax "increase." Now the truth is it will straight up be a .9% tax increase on people making over 200K a year in a few years. So that's your ammo, just to help you out. It is a tax increase of less than 1% on those making over 200K. Other than that, it makes acquiring health insurance and w/ a penalty if you refuse. And btw the tax penalty, is not much. At no point is it greater than the average cost of healthcare (or less than $700) that meets the standards and to be practical if you don't have healthcare under the new system it's going to be $1000ish a year or less unless you are a self destructive idiot. In any event we should move this entire debate to the other topic this topic title is embarrassing for all of America and yes...even by PPP standards. you're kind of touching on all the things wrong with this. Truth is it's not a tax, it's a penalty that's only being called a tax b/c calling it what it is makes it unconstitutional.. It's also a bit disturbing that a government can take such liberties with you, your time, & your money. How long until you are coerced to get your government physical every year to determine what you owe? Maybe the government Dr. & IRS can send your info to a new or expanded bureaucratic agency that takes your health & income into effect to determine the cost of your "health insurance". Further, why should I maintain insurance when can pay $700/yr & sign up for insurance if I need it? If I get in a car accident or something of the sort they still have to treat me. Otherwise what's my $700 for? Oh yeah, it's a "tax". And I wouldn't call for John Roberts' impeachment, but it wouldn't break my heart if he fell off the planet either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 What it does is make acquiring healthcare health insurance easier, and it's a tax penalty if you choose not to. It's not a tax "increase." Now the truth is it will straight up be a .9% tax increase on people making over 200K a year in a few years. So that's your ammo, just to help you out. It is a tax increase of less than 1% on those making over 200K. Other than that, it makes acquiring health insurance and w/ a penalty if you refuse. And btw the tax penalty, is not much. At no point is it greater than the average cost of healthcare (or less than $700) that meets the standards and to be practical if you don't have healthcare under the new system it's going to be $1000ish a year or less unless you are a self destructive idiot. In any event we should move this entire debate to the other topic this topic title is embarrassing for all of America and yes...even by PPP standards. Fixed. If anything, actual care will be more difficult to get. You can't increase the use of an exclusive-use resource without decreasing availability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) Fixed. If anything, actual care will be more difficult to get. You can't increase the use of an exclusive-use resource without decreasing availability. Very well stated. Our ACA advocates on the board seem to have a blind spot to this, no matter who posts it. Everyone (supposedly) will be covered, but there are limited resources (and I contend then will get even scarcer) and an increased amount of clients. There will be delays There will be panels. . Edited June 29, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Fixed. If anything, actual care will be more difficult to get. You can't increase the use of an exclusive-use resource without decreasing availability. yep. this is precisely why so many haves are against it. the have nots will take some of their healthcare resources. but as the number of uninsured has grown so have the number that will benefit from the bill. i prefer to think that most humans aren't innately selfish but the evidence from opinions on this bill show otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Very well stated. Our ACA advocates on the board seem to have a blind spot to this, no matter who posts it. Everyone (supposedly) will be covered, but there are limited resources (and I contend then will get even scarcer) and an increased amount of clients. There will be delays There will be panels. . Notice how the ACA advocates have been relatively quiet up until yesterday, but now interpret a SC ruling (by a 1 vote margin) that the constitution doesn't absolutely forbid this activity (although it is forbidden under the authority congress & the king cited in enacting it) as a ringing endorsement of the wisdom and virtue of this hodge-podge "do something" abortion of a law. yep. this is precisely why so many haves are against it. the have nots will take some of their healthcare resources. but as the number of uninsured has grown so have the number that will benefit from the bill. i prefer to think that most humans aren't innately selfish but the evidence from opinions on this bill show otherwise. You know, I'm friends with a lot of libs, "progressives", and outright Marxists. They get off on the idea of a perfect society & that's cool; they can think whatever they want & it doesn't change the flavor of my beer. What makes you such a contemptible piece of **** is your insistence in declaring that everyone who doesn't believe in your starry eyed, naive, idealistic bull **** is driven by selfish and immoral motives. Did it ever cross your simple mind that others might think your ideas, if implemented, might cause more harm than good to the society as a whole? Or do you need to demonize them to justify something within yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Notice how the ACA advocates have been relatively quiet up until yesterday, but now interpret a SC ruling (by a 1 vote margin) that the constitution doesn't absolutely forbid this activity (although it is forbidden under the authority congress & the king cited in enacting it) as a ringing endorsement of the wisdom and virtue of this hodge-podge "do something" abortion of a law. Laws are a lot like food- the more ingredients listed (pages), the worse it is. As far as the margin goes, that is the measuring stick for constitutionality- a 5-4 vote the other way is all it would have needed to be stricken down. It isn't nearly a perfect law, but has some good things in it. The biggest shame about it all, is that both sides can't just come together and find ways to improve it (By some of the intelligent posts on both sides, that wouldn't be hard to do). But then again, that type of process might be unconstitutional by a landslide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) Wow an intellectual and a tough guy. It's all in the technique sweetheart - just like I explained to you in that "other" context the other night. Edited June 29, 2012 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 i prefer to think that most humans aren't innately selfish You haven't been paying much attention to the last 6000 years, have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts