By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - What happens if ObamaCare is overturned?

Kasz216 on 28 June 2012
badgenome said:
Ajescent said:
So...why are people so against this? From where I stand (i.e as a guy who gets sick at the drop of a hat and often requires hospital visits and is too broke to afford to pay for anything) This can only be a good thing.

Only complaints I've heard is 'it's "unamerican, unpatriotic, socialist"' not entirely sure what any of that means.

How about the fact that whether or not you believe health care is a "right", this is an incredibly dishonest and, frankly, fucking stupid way of going about it. The whole thing has been sold as putting evil, abusive insurance companies in their place when in reality it is just forcing people to do business with these same evil, abusive insurance companies. It's very telling that the whole time the Democrats were demonizing them and talking about how hard the insurance companies were working to defeat the bill... they actually weren't. That's because they were helping to write the bill. It's crony capitalism at its worst.

It's funny, they had a guy interveiwed on CNBC who was glad the bill passed,because that means it guranteed the 12 year ban on biosimilers.

This is of course vs Europe and Asia who are going to allow biosimilar generic drugs right off the bat.



Around the Network
Ajescent on 28 June 2012
badgenome said:
Ajescent said:
So...why are people so against this? From where I stand (i.e as a guy who gets sick at the drop of a hat and often requires hospital visits and is too broke to afford to pay for anything) This can only be a good thing.

Only complaints I've heard is 'it's "unamerican, unpatriotic, socialist"' not entirely sure what any of that means.

How about the fact that whether or not you believe health care is a "right", this is an incredibly dishonest and, frankly, fucking stupid way of going about it. The whole thing has been sold as putting evil, abusive insurance companies in their place when in reality it is just forcing people to do business with these same evil, abusive insurance companies. It's very telling that the whole time the Democrats were demonizing them and talking about how hard the insurance companies were working to defeat the bill... they actually weren't. That's because they were helping to write the bill. It's crony capitalism at its worst.

So the hate has nothing to do with the content just the "how"?

I should point out I'm not in America land so I don't know the ins and outs of how it came about it, all I've heard is it's a good thing and people are against it.



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

SamuelRSmith on 28 June 2012

If you open a health savings account, will you still have to pay a fine?



badgenome on 28 June 2012
Ajescent said:

So the hate has nothing to do with the content just the "how"?

I should point out I'm not in America land so I don't know the ins and outs of how it came about it, all I've heard is it's a good thing and people are against it.

I mean, there are people who hate it for a million different reasons. Some people hate the process by which it was passed, some people want a full on single payer, some people hate it just because the Democrats passed it, some old people are scared that their Medicare is going to get cut, or whatever. But it's a shit law that was sold (to the extent that anyone is actually sold on it) on a bunch of lies, and any way you slice it, it doesn't fix anything. Worse than not fixing anything, it turns private insurance into a public welfare scheme, and broken as the present system is and as much as I'm opposed to government run health care, this manages to be even worse than either of those.



Mr Khan on 28 June 2012
badgenome said:
Kasz216 said:

Oh yeah, Obama was all worried about "Conservative Judicial Activism."

Wonder if he'll acknowledge the activism in the fact that the court ruled a way that both sides rejecetd. (well I don't... but it's ironic.)

It was a clear case of the court not wanting to stick with the status quo healthcare and finding any legal loophole they could to get it to pass because it was obviously unconsitutuitonal from the commerce clause to anyone who looked at it objectivly.

Roberts, maybe. Ginsburg's opinion (joined by Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan) made it clear that they still believe that the Commerce Clause has no practical limits, at least so long as they like the outcome.

One wonders if Roberts wasn't getting a little concerned about the low approval rating. But then again polls are against the individual mandate so he could've scored some points and simultaneously really screwed up Obamacare by upholding everything but striking down the mandate.

This one's just weird.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Plezbo on 28 June 2012

The second biggest problem that I have with this Health Care debacle is that it is 2700 pages of legislation that the supporters of the bill admitted that they hadn't read. The quote was, "vote for it and we will read it later." The excuse that the individual mandate equates to a tax is ludicrous. The individual mandate is in direct violation of our constitution, and Chief Justice Roberts must have been high on bath salts when he joined the liberal judges in approving it.



badgenome on 28 June 2012
Mr Khan said:

One wonders if Roberts wasn't getting a little concerned about the low approval rating. But then again polls are against the individual mandate so he could've scored some points and simultaneously really screwed up Obamacare by upholding everything but striking down the mandate.

This one's just weird.

I doubt it. It's not like his job depends on winning reelection, and the Supreme Court's role is constitutionally defined, so they're untouchable. Given how unpopular Washington is in general, I'd say SCOTUS' numbers still look pretty good by comparison.



killerzX on 28 June 2012
Kasz216 said:

Interesting. Looks like they're upholding the individual mandate BUT it's NOT constitutional under the commerce cause. They're treating it as a tax... which is odd cause even the Obama administration abandoned that line of argument in the debate.

Also amusing, Howard Dean thought the ruling should go the same way as me. So much for me holding an "extreme right wing view"

 

Seens like the best ruling if your hellbent on keeping the individual mandate but don't want to expand the commerce clause to all government to make people buy Kenny G Cds.

well they still can. you dont want that green electric car. that's fine, we cant force you to, but if you dont buy it, we will levy a tax on you.



Mr Khan on 28 June 2012
killerzX said:
Kasz216 said:

Interesting. Looks like they're upholding the individual mandate BUT it's NOT constitutional under the commerce cause. They're treating it as a tax... which is odd cause even the Obama administration abandoned that line of argument in the debate.

Also amusing, Howard Dean thought the ruling should go the same way as me. So much for me holding an "extreme right wing view"

 

Seens like the best ruling if your hellbent on keeping the individual mandate but don't want to expand the commerce clause to all government to make people buy Kenny G Cds.

well they still can. you dont want that green electric car. that's fine, we cant force you to, but if you dont buy it, we will levy a tax on you.

Those who contribute to pollution should pay into funds to help save the environment. Only seems fair to me, like Carbon Cap-and-Trade.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

killerzX on 28 June 2012
Mr Khan said:
killerzX said:
Kasz216 said:

Interesting. Looks like they're upholding the individual mandate BUT it's NOT constitutional under the commerce cause. They're treating it as a tax... which is odd cause even the Obama administration abandoned that line of argument in the debate.

Also amusing, Howard Dean thought the ruling should go the same way as me. So much for me holding an "extreme right wing view"

 

Seens like the best ruling if your hellbent on keeping the individual mandate but don't want to expand the commerce clause to all government to make people buy Kenny G Cds.

well they still can. you dont want that green electric car. that's fine, we cant force you to, but if you dont buy it, we will levy a tax on you.

Those who contribute to pollution should pay into funds to help save the environment. Only seems fair to me, like Carbon Cap-and-Trade.

carbon dioxcide is not a pollutant.

also electirc car are in many ways worse for the environment than gas cars.

the shipping and manufacturing of the battery, replacing the battery, having it be charges by coal powered electricity.

further more thats idiotic, and beside my point that they can still force you to buy kenny G Cds