Home | Yearly News Archive | Advertisers | Blog | Contact Us |
|
Thursday, October 31, 2024 |
|
Obamacare |
Post Reply |
Author | |
greygoose
MUSA Resident Joined: May 19 2012 Status: Offline Points: 158 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: Jul 15 2012 at 12:13pm |
As the presidential election grows closer, I am sure that we will hear about the pros and cons of Obamacare until we can recite them in our sleep. Until then, I am curious about the opinions of this forum’s members as they relate to “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) aka Obamacare.
To start the discussion, I want to admit the following: 1. Typically, I am a fiscally conservative person who opposes the federal government’s involvement in anything. 2. As the GM of a company for 25 years, I have personally witnessed the impact of the cost of healthcare on a typical small business. 3. I am personally impacted by the legislation because both my wife and I have pre-existing medical conditions. To start the debate……. I started looking into this topic expecting to “oppose” the legislation but, to be honest; it appears to me that it is much better than status quo. Other than a political point of difference, what is there in this legislation that is wrong for America? GG |
|
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"
|
|
Bocephus
MUSA Citizen Joined: Jun 04 2009 Status: Offline Points: 838 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
My thoughts are that Obama care won't matter as much to those that are able to afford to pay for the best doctors but for the rest of us its going wind up like Englands health care eventualy be s.o.s.
Maybe you could read all 2400 or was it 2500 pages and give us a complete analysis of it Mr. Goose,as most of us including the Congress are unaware whats really in it. |
|
TonyB
MUSA Citizen Joined: Jan 12 2011 Location: Middletown, OH Status: Offline Points: 631 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
If you don't know what is in the Affordable Health Care Law, how can you be against it? Is it just because those who oppose it, oppose Obama? In other words, if Obama's for it, I'm against it? Not much logic or reasoning behind that argument.
|
|
squeemy
MUSA Resident Joined: Dec 23 2009 Location: Middletown Status: Offline Points: 125 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
One of the best explanations of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act comes courtesy of "CaspianX2" on Reddit. Here's a copy of the beginning: "What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that. Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to. So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it): (Note: Page numbers listed in citations are the page numbers within the PDF, not the page numbers of the document itself) Already in effect:
1/1/2013
1/1/2014 This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.
Question: What determines whether or not I can afford the mandate? Will I be forced to pay for insurance I can't afford? Answer: There are all kinds of checks in place to keep you from getting screwed. Kaiser actually has a webpage with a pretty good rundown on it, if you're worried about it. You can see it here. Okay, have we got that settled? Okay, moving on...
1/1/2015
1/1/2017
2018
2020
|
|
greygoose
MUSA Resident Joined: May 19 2012 Status: Offline Points: 158 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Squeemy,
Thanks for sharing this summary. It does a great job of explaining the legislation in a simple, easy to understand, format. GG |
|
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"
|
|
Richard Saunders
MUSA Resident Joined: Jun 30 2010 Status: Offline Points: 232 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
If this is a "simple, easy to understand format" then AJ Smith and Anne Mort are Rhodes scholars on the verge of solving cold fusion and David Schiavonne and Lawrence Mulligan are honest politicians with only the people's best interests in mind.
|
|
greygoose
MUSA Resident Joined: May 19 2012 Status: Offline Points: 158 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Richard,
Read my post again Mr. Saunders. I stated that the "summary" was easy to understand. Do you have "anything" to contribute other than an attitude? I happen to support the legislation and I am curious if those that oppose it have any justification other than they oppose "anything" that Obama supports. In short.... is this good legislation or bad legislation? Try to provide some justification to your opinion and try to leave the attitude behind. GG |
|
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"
|
|
Hermes
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: May 19 2009 Location: Middletown Status: Offline Points: 1637 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I see Obama Care as very dangerous.First of all that traitor supreme court justice John Roberts declared Obama Care a tax,what does that mean exactly ? My definition is this,a tax is something everyone has to pay meaning you have no choice so since you have no choice you will be forced to take Obama Care whether you want it or not and what does this mean for employers ? I think you will see employer provided health care vanish.Sooner or later every American will be forced to accept the government version of health care with no options.And since it will be forced upon us and since it's a tax and with government run a muck quality of health care will eventually also vanish which makes this very dangerous.Case in point take a look at health care provided to veterans by the VA.
|
|
No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !!
|
|
greygoose
MUSA Resident Joined: May 19 2012 Status: Offline Points: 158 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Hermse,
I assume that you referred to Justice Roberts as a “traitor” because he was appointed by a conservative republican President but ruled in favor of legislation sponsored by a liberal President. Do you truly want our Supreme Court to make rulings based upon party affiliation or political ideology? Wouldn’t you prefer that they make their decisions based on our constitution? I, for one, am sick of seeing votes strictly along party lines (both parties). It tells me that they put their power above the needs of our country and it is shameful. GG |
|
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"
|
|
Hermes
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: May 19 2009 Location: Middletown Status: Offline Points: 1637 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
greygoose.....I refer to Roberts as a traitor because he agrees with Obama Care and declared it a tax which is wrong.What Roberts did went against the constitution and our basic rights.As for Bush picking Roberts that is not even true.Roberts is the only supreme court justice to ever be chosen by a non-attorney and was recommended to Bush by Karl Rove.That in itself makes Roberts suspicious in my book.
|
|
No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !!
|
|
greygoose
MUSA Resident Joined: May 19 2012 Status: Offline Points: 158 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Interesting........
A Constitutional schlolar made a decision contrary to the laws of our Constitution..... Isn't more likely that this adhered to the Constitution but it was contrary to what you wanted? This is what I am trying too determine. What is the "real" reason that some folks oppose this legislation. What is in it that they don't like or think is bad for our country? I'm looking for specifics. An answer like "it goes against the Constitution" says to me that you really don't have a good reason to oppose it. Also... I didn't know that Karl Rove had the power to appoint a Supreme Court nominee. I guess that I had better brush up on my civic lessons. |
|
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"
|
|
Bocephus
MUSA Citizen Joined: Jun 04 2009 Status: Offline Points: 838 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
TudorBrown
MUSA Citizen Joined: Aug 24 2009 Location: Highlands D. Status: Offline Points: 265 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
egardless of my own political leanings, I take exception to this ruling
because it amounts to a legal comedy of contradictions and blatant
fallacies that cannot be reconciled with reality. And by blatant
fallacies, I don't mean matters of opinion. Demonstrable, actual,
factual fraud has been perpetrated upon the American people.
I read the 180+ page decision. In addition, I also read and re-read the Roberts opinion and the 70+ page dissent twice. Had this law been upheld on sound legal ground through the legitimate application of the constitution, then I would come to accept the result. However, this is simply not the case—and no argument can be made to the contrary. Unfortunately, winning trumps the truth every single time (especially in politics and law). I'm not going to delve into the legalese too much, but in simple terms there are three glaringly obvious misstatements of fact which ultimately preserved the individual mandate of the ACA (The affordable care act) as a constitutionally permissible tax. (1) On the first day of oral arguments, solicitor general Verrilli argued that the individual mandate was not a tax. On day two, he argued that it was a tax. When Justice Alito questioned Verrilli as to whether the Supreme Court had ever ruled that an aspect of legislation is a tax for one purpose while simultaneously not being a tax for another, Verrilli answered in the negative. Yet, that is the crux of the Roberts opinion. On page 15 of the Roberts opinion he plainly states that the individual mandate is not a tax while on page 35 he opines the EXACT opposite. Throw in the following facts: Obama has repeated ad nauseum that the individual mandate is not a tax, the Federal Government argued in more than one of the district court cases which led to the SC showdown that the bill was not a tax and that the bill was RENAMED and restructured prior to its passage to purposely remove the tax label in an unsuccessful effort to shield Congressional Democrats from the 2010 midterm onslaught. (2) Even the liberal justices on the court DISSENT from Robert’s mindless theory that the individual mandate is a tax. (3) By legal definition and the plain statutory language of the ACA, the individual mandate is penalty and NOT a tax. Page 18 of the dissenting opinion says in relevant portion: “In a few cases, this court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never-- that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty.” I can go on and on—but the bottom line here is that this decision was upheld on an invalid and utterly dishonest legal premise. |
|
greygoose
MUSA Resident Joined: May 19 2012 Status: Offline Points: 158 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Tudor,
Thank you for this insight...... its the first that I've heard of it. Do you find it surprising that this ruling came from what most would consider a conserative justice? Do you think that there is any possibility that he may have written his opinion in a way that would enhance repeal efforts after the election (should the repubs win)? It amazes me that a justice in the highest court in the land can view the same mandate differently based strictly on its "purpose". I shouldn't be surprised but I am. Thanks again. GG |
|
"If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got"
|
|
Hermes
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: May 19 2009 Location: Middletown Status: Offline Points: 1637 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Roberts a constitutional scholar ? I seriously doubt that.You say your looking for specifics,using the phrase "against the constitution" is no doubt a generalization and it is appropriate as no one has the time to list all the reason's and the amendment's that are violated.Were the founders also constitutional scholars when they wrote it ? Not in any sense.You maybe one of many who think you can only be ruled by an education,but an education is nothing more than someone else's understanding of the subject taught.Where is your common sense ? Your line that you didn't know Rove could appoint a justice is your way of trying to make me look ignorant but doesn't work anyway,even a 2nd grader would know that.Your reading comprehension is slightly lacking,I said Rove "recommended" Roberts to Bush.And your right,brush up on your civics.
|
|
No more democrats no more republicans,vote Constitution Party !!
|
|
TonyB
MUSA Citizen Joined: Jan 12 2011 Location: Middletown, OH Status: Offline Points: 631 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
You all seem to think that Justice Roberts is some kind of moron. He is not. He made this decision for political and not constitutional considerations. This gives Republicans something to run against; his labeling the individual mandate a "tax" provides ammo to the "tax and spend" mantra. If he had struck the law down, it would have energized the Democratic and progressives to elect Obama and Democrats to Congress for the purpose of having single payer health care. Now, Obama and the Democrats have to defend the law. This is one of the most politicized Supreme Courts in modern history and this is just another example of that.
|
|
Pacman
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Jun 02 2007 Status: Offline Points: 2612 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
It is always nice to hear all the good stuff, much which could have been done using other methods.
1. tort reform 2. allowing insurance company's to sell across state lines to create larger pools 3. Allow small firms to create groups large enough to gain favorable prices and benefits 4. not take half billion dollars out medicare 5. rather than state "you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor" as Obama has done, He should have stated that "If you like your isurance you have now, you can keep you insurance". Instead many company's will drop their health insurance for their employees forcing millions into the government run program. With the Employee paying the insurance premium out-of-pocket. Someone explain to be why a company with 10's of 1000's of employees would pay the high cost of insurance when they could get by with just pay a $2000 fine per employee. 6. Company that border on the 50 or more employees would simply not hire and keep their employees under 50 or find another way around it by starting a 2nd company. Personally, Nancy Pelosi's comment "that we must pass this bill to see what is in it..." did it in for me. One of the most ridiculous comments in American history. There is more but being blind makes it difficult for me to do research. Besides, come January 2013, I'm going on Medicare Pacman |
|
409
Prominent MUSA Citizen Joined: Mar 27 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1014 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I understand.........? |
|
Post Reply | |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.
Copyright ©2024 MiddletownUSA.com | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Site by Xponex Media | Advertising Information |