Political Forums
Forum Notice

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old June 28th, 2012, 06:13 AM   #1
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,427
The Court has decided that the individual mandate is Constitutional, but as a tax penalty and not under the commerce clause. So, it was indeed Constitutional.
waitingtables is offline  
Remove Ads
Old June 28th, 2012, 06:33 AM   #2
Site Founder
 
RidinHighSpeeds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 6,705
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHlRY3kHhBk[/youtube]



He better stand by his promise..
RidinHighSpeeds is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 06:49 AM   #3
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,427
He took this plan from your former Governor's law.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 06:54 AM   #4
Site Founder
 
RidinHighSpeeds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 6,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
He took this plan from your former Governor's law.


You mean Ted Kennedy? Everyone calls it Romneycare, but you have to remember Romney worked with leading Democrat's in my state so fix a state problem. Obamacare is absolutely nothing like Romneycare. Our Government should let states craft up their own plans, not a one-size-fits-all because that simply will not work.
RidinHighSpeeds is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 06:58 AM   #5
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by RidinHighSpeeds View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1340894947' post='409743

He took this plan from your former Governor's law.


You mean Ted Kennedy? Everyone calls it Romneycare, but you have to remember Romney worked with leading Democrat's in my state so fix a state problem. Obamacare is absolutely nothing like Romneycare. Our Government should let states craft up their own plans, not a one-size-fits-all because that simply will not work.


Under the law you call Obamacare, the states absolutely have the option to craft their own health reform as long as it does the same as the federal law does or better. Check out what Vermont has done and you will see what I am saying. But states do not have the option to allow for this significant portion of our economy and GDP to grow further and must either comply with Obamacare or create their own versions like Mass and Vermont.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 07:03 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by RidinHighSpeeds View Post
Our Government should let states craft up their own plans, not a one-size-fits-all because that simply will not work.


And that's what the ACA does - let states create their own plans which meet a minimum standard. Only when a state fails to do so do the feds step in and take over for the teabaggers.
skrekk is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 08:35 AM   #7
Retired
 
highway80west's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 16,769
I was somewhat mistaken. At first, I thought what the SCOTUS did was easy. Then I realized they reviewed it for months. And then it came down to a 5-4 decision.



My boss and I talked about it this morning. He said he probably could not be approved for health insurance because he has a variety of things done to him like stents, angioplasties, etc. I told him he'd probably would have had to apply for MRMIP type of insurance in California, which is what I did.



Having said, if a patient has to go to the emergency room without insurance but is able to afford it, I do wonder if an in-house social worker would visit the patient and ask if he/she wishes to be insured. I guess it all depends on the patient's health history. If a person has no red flags like high blood pressure, heart ailments, is not obese, whatever, then perhaps the patient can apply for health insurance without fear of being turned down.



Otherwise, the patient might have to apply through an MRMIP (Major Risk Medical Insurance Program in California) or PCIP (Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, if a patient hadn't been insured for 6 months or more). For a patient to do that, he/she would have to show proof of being denied insurance, pay the first month's premium, and a couple of other things.



I am sure everybody remembers that Romney had a similar plan in Massachusetts. Yet he said he does not approve of Obamacare. I guess that's why I won't vote for Mitt. He seems to be a little wishy-washy. My boss would vote for Obama, even though he is a republican voter.
highway80west is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 08:57 AM   #8
Site Founder
 
RidinHighSpeeds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 6,705
Either way, he lied to the American people. He said he was not going to raise taxes back in 2008/2009, yet we are forced to purchase health insurance else we face a tax penalty. Either way, we are being forced to pay something.



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHlRY3kHhBk[/youtube]
RidinHighSpeeds is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 09:05 AM   #9
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,427
You are already forced to pay for the costs incurred by those who are not paying their medical bills and have no insurance. And when the pool of people with insurance is increased the costs are lower for the rest of us. And the individual states have the right to implement their own versions that meet the standards or go further than the ones set forth in the federal.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 09:05 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by RidinHighSpeeds View Post
Either way, he lied to the American people. He said he was not going to raise taxes back in 2008/2009, yet we are forced to purchase health insurance else we face a tax penalty. Either way, we are being forced to pay something.


Apparently you think having everybody take some measure of responsibility for their healthcare rather than having the insured pick up the costs for the uninsured, somehow magically raises your costs rather than reducing your costs.
skrekk is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 09:06 AM   #11
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,427
And no one has to pay for anything if they already have health coverage. Those it effects are about 16% of the population.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 09:09 AM   #12
Retired
 
highway80west's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 16,769
RHS, I am very fortunate that my company is paying for my health insurance until my employment ends at the end of this year. My monthly premium is $683.25.



Taxes, well, that's another story. We know there are two things that we can all be sure, but don't wish to count on: death and taxes.
highway80west is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 10:18 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 8,333
I'll be interested in reading Kennedy's dissent. I had expected he'd vote in favor of the ACA and the mandate. Also I wonder what long-term impact the Medicaid part of the ruling will have? That part seems problematic.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/co...aid-expansion/
skrekk is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 10:20 AM   #14
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,427
Yeah, me too.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 10:42 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fort Rucker, Alabama
Posts: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
You are already forced to pay for the costs incurred by those who are not paying their medical bills and have no insurance. And when the pool of people with insurance is increased the costs are lower for the rest of us. And the individual states have the right to implement their own versions that meet the standards or go further than the ones set forth in the federal.


Are you kidding? You actually believe that premiums are going to go down because more people are forced to buy private health care? If health insurance companies know they have a monopoly, what motivation do they have to lower their rates? I have a feel this will become another Standard Oil senario. You think the quality of healthcare service will increase? Ha! It will remain sick get undercare and healthy overcare and with extra revenue these corporate insurance companies are about to make billions more in profits thanks to Obama. If this were so important what would be wrong with institutionalizing all healthcare? like the police and the fire department?
Danjb25 is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 10:48 AM   #16
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,427
That is in fact what will happen. And insurance companies must comply with the rules in the PPACA that force them to spend a percentage of their premiums paid to them on actually covering it's members and not on administrative costs and executive pay. You are refusing to actually look into what this law does and says and are simply listening to the rhetoric from the right about it.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 10:51 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fort Rucker, Alabama
Posts: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables View Post
That is in fact what will happen. And insurance companies must comply with the rules in the PPACA that force them to spend a percentage of their premiums paid to them on actually covering it's members and not on administrative costs and executive pay. You are refusing to actually look into what this law does and says and are simply listening to the rhetoric from the right about it.


I could have sworn Obama said the mandate wasn't a tax. Didn't he say,

[background=#ffffff]"You can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase,"
Danjb25 is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 10:52 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fort Rucker, Alabama
Posts: 957
I guess he lied to us again, who would have thought coming from a man who won a peace prize for using drones to kill people in countries we're not at war with?
Danjb25 is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 11:10 AM   #19
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danjb25 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by waitingtables' timestamp='1340909313' post='409822

That is in fact what will happen. And insurance companies must comply with the rules in the PPACA that force them to spend a percentage of their premiums paid to them on actually covering it's members and not on administrative costs and executive pay. You are refusing to actually look into what this law does and says and are simply listening to the rhetoric from the right about it.


I could have sworn Obama said the mandate wasn't a tax. Didn't he say,

"You can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase,"


Quote:
Originally Posted by Danjb25 View Post
I guess he lied to us again, who would have thought coming from a man who won a peace prize for using drones to kill people in countries we're not at war with?




The Congress thought that it would not be a tax, but the SCOTUS has said that it is a penalty for someone to CHOOSE to not have insurance. So in effect, it is a choice and not a lie from the president.



As far as drones being used to kill Al-Qaeda, and us in this country not losing mre priceless American lives in order to do that, it's a good thing. And effective. And far less controversial than any number of things that occurred in the last administration. All this huffing and puffing is just sour grapes. He never claimed that he would be soft on Al-Qaeda and people who terrorize other people. And the Congressional permission was granted for this under Bush.



Chief Justice Roberts is apparently a lot smarter than I thought he was. The way he did this ruling was the best possible way he could do things. It was as, I have heard others saying already elsewhere, masterful on his part. Really.
waitingtables is offline  
Old June 28th, 2012, 11:16 AM   #20
Eyes Wide Open
 
waitingtables's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 39,427
And this will only effect 2% to 5% of Americans. Strangely though, there is apparently no penalty for not paying the penalty? Yes, there will hae to be some changes made to this, but it is better to have a good start than nothing.



If it were overturned, next year while my daughter is in college, she would be kicked off of our health plan and on her own. Without a job. Which means that me and my husband will then have to pay for her care out of our pockets while still paying for our premiums as well. Why?? We work hard every day. That is simply not right. Health and access to health care is of the utmost importance. What else matters if you cannot live? Or if you are sick and could be better and can't? We are the only rich nation that does not cover it's citizens. It is immoral and barbaric, especially here, where we are supposed to be "exceptional".
waitingtables is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
care, health, law, scotus, upheld


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Yes, I Want the Government to Run Health Care tyrone_det Big Government 45 February 11th, 2013 09:00 PM
Health Care for No One! roastpork Healthcare 57 January 25th, 2013 07:45 PM
'Romney care' touted in health care reform debate CNN Current Events 1 August 20th, 2009 12:13 PM
Health Care Nightrider Opinion Polls 4 June 17th, 2008 12:22 PM
health care musica Healthcare 4 June 24th, 2007 08:23 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.