Obamacare Summed up in One Sentence

FattyFatCat

whygohome wrote:

FattyFatCat wrote:

Because the Fed Govt does not have the powers under the Constitution to require a private citizen to buy a product under penalty of law.

And they still don't- b/c John Roberts permitted it as a tax.
Even though Obama said its not a tax.

And John Roberts is a boob.

Hurry up and find yourself a copy of the Constitution--because you have never read it before--and browse through it and educate us on how the individual mandate is unconstitutional

Whateva, Professah.



I dont feed trolls.

whygohome

FattyFatCat wrote:

whygohome wrote:

FattyFatCat wrote:

Because the Fed Govt does not have the powers under the Constitution to require a private citizen to buy a product under penalty of law.

And they still don't- b/c John Roberts permitted it as a tax.
Even though Obama said its not a tax.

And John Roberts is a boob.

Hurry up and find yourself a copy of the Constitution--because you have never read it before--and browse through it and educate us on how the individual mandate is unconstitutional

Whateva, Professah.



I dont feed trolls.

How am I a troll?

It is a serious question: using the U.S. Constitution, how is the individual mandate unconstitutional?

I think that statements such as that should be supported by evidence. In fact, I think the large majority of statements on various topics--economics, history, politics, etc.--should be supported by some factual or textual evidence.

_

cincybearcat wrote:

_ wrote:

1. It actually does have provisions to help increase the number of primary care providers.
2. Its benefits are already taking effect.
3. The personal fitness of individual people is completely irrelevent to whether or not a system is good for a population.

(4. Too bad it doesn't also require people to learn how to write proper sentences.)

3+4. The personal sentence structuring skills of individual people is completely irrelevant to whether or not they have a good point.

Just having some fun.

mikepegg44

whygohome wrote:

How am I a troll?

It is a serious question: using the U.S. Constitution, how is the individual mandate unconstitutional?

I think that statements such as that should be supported by evidence. In fact, I think the large majority of statements on various topics--economics, history, politics, etc.--should be supported by some factual or textual evidence.

not to get in the middle of all this, but I just can't help a good constitutional argument.

I distinctly remember President Obama telling me it wasn't a tax and actually getting a little smug with George S about the matter.

Either President Obama is a liar, and it is a tax or it is unconstitutional. The supreme court said it was a tax, thus making it constitutional under the oddly applied tax powers. Could have easily gone the other way when they rejected the commerce clause argument. And that is the reason why Justice Jackson said this, "we are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

whygohome

mikepegg44 wrote:

whygohome wrote:

How am I a troll?

It is a serious question: using the U.S. Constitution, how is the individual mandate unconstitutional?

I think that statements such as that should be supported by evidence. In fact, I think the large majority of statements on various topics--economics, history, politics, etc.--should be supported by some factual or textual evidence.

not to get in the middle of all this, but I just can't help a good constitutional argument.

I distinctly remember President Obama telling me it wasn't a tax and actually getting a little smug with George S about the matter.

Either President Obama is a liar, and it is a tax or it is unconstitutional. The supreme court said it was a tax, thus making it constitutional under the oddly applied tax powers. Could have easily gone the other way when they rejected the commerce clause argument. And that is the reason why Justice Jackson said this, "we are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

My take on the Commerce Clause is this: due to the implementation of private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, health insurance, and those who are covered by it, crosses state borders. Therefore, the Federal Government has jurisdiction to regulate that commerce when:
1. An individual is out of state and undergoes a procedure, needs care, etc., that his/her company denies. They will still receive care, but who will pay for it? Many would say that it is their responsibility. But, we all know how high medical costs could be. (And, it is easy to say that when it is not you). So, the taxpayer would usually foot the bill. The Individual Mandate, and other provisions that prohibit insurance companies the ability to deny care, prevents this situation.
2. If an individual without insurance goes through a similar situation--out of state, needs care--mandating insurance coverage prevents the taxpayer from footing the bill

Health, and the need for healthcare, sees no borders between states.

This, in short, is my interpretation.

acutejam

whygohome wrote:

:fp:
Now everyone on this board can see you for who you are.

Nice approach to discourse/debate you got there... But that does build upon the entirity of what's all wrong with us. Express your views and be mocked/shamed...

And Now We See YOU for who you are...

whygohome

acutejam wrote:

whygohome wrote:

:fp:
Now everyone on this board can see you for who you are.

Nice approach to discourse/debate you got there... But that does build upon the entirity of what's all wrong with us. Express your views and be mocked/shamed...

And Now We See YOU for who you are...

Hmmm....I was referring to his statement, "i get my information from youtube clips and fox news. Good shit!"

Now, those of us on the board that have had to suffer through his posts always knew he was a troll; it was obvious, but also conjecture (paradoxically speaking).

Now, since he has admitted to getting his news and information from the sources he named, we can see him for who he is: an individual who is only on this board to troll and bait.

acutejam

lol -- OH MY, yeah, mama trolled the Seattle 1 EV show fanview last year, now I remember that name.... hehehe. "So my buddy left this msg on my answering machine...."

well, honestly, didn't really think of that background or that he/she was trolling.

As a recovering republican in california, struck a nerve, I've seen the whole shaming of folks for their views thing up close and personal -- accept the label, reject the person. End of discussion. It's sad.

whygohome

acutejam wrote:

lol -- OH MY, yeah, mama trolled the Seattle 1 EV show fanview last year, now I remember that name.... hehehe. "So my buddy left this msg on my answering machine...."

well, honestly, didn't really think of that background or that he/she was trolling.

As a recovering republican in california, struck a nerve, I've seen the whole shaming of folks for their views thing up close and personal -- accept the label, reject the person. End of discussion. It's sad.

No sweat. Things get heated on the AMT at times, so I can see how that comment may look.
We all love each other here though, that's what matters most.

Prince Of Dorkness

Watching Republicans try to distort, warp and just plain lie about a law a popular as Obamacare is beyond pathetic.

It's like you'd rather just have a publicly-funded cart being dragged through the streets with a guy yelling "BRING OUT YOUR DEAD!!!"

_

Kel Varnsen wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

The plan itself doesn't add new doctors, because remember

Do you need to add more doctors though? I mean for example it takes a lot less effort on a doctors part to give someone an exam and prescribe them medication to lower their blood pressure than it does to do an emergency bypass operation (along with all the post-op care) on someone who is having a heart attack. I am not sure how the new US health system works (because if doesn't affect me) but it is pretty simple to see how the more people who have access to preventative medicine, the less money and time you spend dealing with big problems. It is the same way as if you spend $40 and half an hour every 6 months or whatever your manual says getting an oil change, you significantly cut down the odds that your car will need major repairs.

We need more primary care physicians (and mid-level providers) to provide that preventive health care. And the Affordable Care Act addressed that by providing more incentives for people to go into primary care, etc. The American Academy of Family Physicians recommended what needs to be done to increase the number of primary care docs & I believe they were all adopted by the ACA.