PokerPacker Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I've read a lot of this stuff and it really sounds like hyperbole to me because I can't think of a single time I have seen someone give specific, plausible examples. How, specifically, will this bill deprive you of your freedom, your safety, your equality, your personal welfare, etc? I mean specifics, not just vague slogans like "government overreach" or what not. It encroaches upon your freedom to not purchase a service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Frankly it sickens me to hear various Republicans drone on and on about how this law will come between patients and their doctors and they have no compunction whatsoever to have politicians and their laws come between women and their doctors. That's just hypocritical. You're thinking about this in entirely the wrong way. Hearing Lamebaugh and his ilk all apoplectic and on the verge of stroking out was perhaps the most fun I've had all year. A huge victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat. Just bask in the enjoyment. So now they're saying the only way to get rid of it is to beat Obama. Just imagine the wailing and knashing of teeth when that doesn't happen either. Heck we might actually get to see Boehner cry again and Droopy McConnell's head pop off...literally. Edited June 28, 2012 by Yusuf06 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 It encroaches upon your freedom to not purchase a service. And when you inevitably need that service, it encroaches on other peoples premium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 So, basically will people be taxed , for something they never purchased and never owned? Yes, and just think of all the possibilities the future scum will use for behavior modification through extortion via taxation. Simply amazing. Just unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Freedoms aren't absolute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Freedoms aren't absolute. Mother lode of the obvious and for those in gov't, TAXATION certainly is. Edited June 28, 2012 by aREDSKIN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pez Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 It encroaches upon your freedom to not purchase a service. Social Security? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 All true also. Conservatives have no answer for how to "fix" health care. Actually, Obamacare was their fix until Obama proposed it. Its just a sad story of politics at this point. Anything else is going to be more "liberal" than Obamacare. It amazes me that most on the right either don't know this or refuse to acknowledge it. "We loved that idea when it was ours. Now that the other guy agrees with us he's a commie, socialist, red ****! :mad:" Of course Obamneycare isn't the first time that's happened so I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised at the selective amnesia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 So, basically will people be taxed , for something they never purchased and never owned? If that's the question you want to ask then you will be surprised to learn that for the past 200+ years, individual Americans have been taxed for things they themselves never purchased and never owned. Personally, I blame the liberal elite socialist George Washington for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Just waiting for the post a few years from now when someone in this thread gets denied service because a bureaucrat says no...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Just waiting for the post a few years from now when someone in this thread gets denied service because a bureaucrat says no...... As opposed to an insurance executive? I personally would love to nominate some here for death panels. Think the government will listen? :evilg: Edited June 28, 2012 by The Evil Genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Just waiting for the post a few years from now when someone in this thread gets denied service because a bureaucrat says no...... Bureaucrats are making coverage decisions on behalf of private insurers now? It's just funny to read that, because looking at a piece of legislation that guaranteed an additional 30 million customers to private health insurers, a reasonable reader might conclude exactly the opposite. Edited June 28, 2012 by mjah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Bureaucrats are making coverage decisions on behalf of private insurers now?. No way,, what do you think,, HMOs have been telling doctors how long you should stay in the hospital? Honestly, i just wonder how people manage to walk down the street without being run over. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 and to asbury: did you read the majority opinion? it's not like the man was cheerleading, he just took an unbiased stance that says if this is deemed a tax then it's legal. (obviously the "it's not a tax" proclamation holds no weight in this, strictly law cut and dry.) And yet the fact that he didn't "cheerlead" it does not change the fact that Justice Roberts did in fact write the majority opinion which affirms that the Affordable Care Act is in fact constitutional, something that the Right has since its passage screamed inerrerantly that it was unconstitutional...what do they say? Roberts is an "activist judge", Roberts has been bought, Roberts doesn't know what the Constitution really says and means...or that the ACA is in fact Constitutional, and not just deemed constitutional by virtue of a 5-4 decision but constitutional by its own merits. This is what has slammed the Right, they have to either disparage Roberts or they have to admit that they were wrong about the constitutionality of the law. Or change the subject, or minimize the fact that Roberts himself was the swing vote, like you tried to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebluefood Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) I think Justice Roberts' opinion reminded (or should remind) the right that just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it isn't Constitutional. I think he made it clear that he's not a fan of Obamacare, but that wasn't the issue at hand. The issue was whether or not certain aspects of Obamacare are Constitutional. The SCOTUS says it is and after reading the decision, I'm inclined to agree with him. Edited June 28, 2012 by thebluefood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) I don't know for sure, but I think this is what they are referring to. I don't know any of these people so it could just be made up, but I do believe there are plenty of idiots on twitter and it's plausible. https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/524083_486588691367783_807937038_n.jpg As it has been pointed out, considering Canada's health care system, the conservative "I'm moving to Canada!" tweets are a bit ridiculous. But that's what you get after months and months of hysteria whipping by the right wing media: people lose their minds (such as Sen. Pence comparing the SCOTUS decision to 9-11). What's going to happen if Obama wins in Nov? Are conservatives going to declare "The end of America, Part III"? Edited June 28, 2012 by Baculus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I'm inclined to agree it is the largest tax increase in history...and congress certainly has the right to tax I also agree with Scalia...you have to ignore the law as written to justify it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 No way,, what do you think,, HMOs have been telling doctors how long you should stay in the hospital?Honestly, i just wonder how people manage to walk down the street without being run over. Why, those damned dirty government-run HMOs...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Yes, and just think of all the possibilities the future scum will use for behavior modification through extortion via taxation. Simply amazing. Just unbelievable. Hey, how did someone from FreeRepublic hack an ES member's account? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Social Security? Not a fan, but at least that's a tax everybody pays. This is a fine for not purchasing a service. By forcing people to purchase health insurance, you're just begging for the companies to not give a **** about service because you have no choice but to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Not a fan, but at least that's a tax everybody pays. This is a fine for not purchasing a service. By forcing people to purchase health insurance, you're just begging for the companies to not give a **** about service because you have no choice but to get it. I'm also afraid of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) Not a fan, but at least that's a tax everybody pays. This is a fine for not purchasing a service. By forcing people to purchase health insurance, you're just begging for the companies to not give a **** about service because you have no choice but to get it. As someone else pointed out, when you inevitably need this service and decide that you shouldn't have to die even if you didn't buy it and now can't afford what it will take to save you, why should anyone else absorb your costs? Will the people who don't want to pay do the honorable thing and die without forcing their costs on everyone? Whyen they break their leg, will they accept their lameness and go find a stout stick in the woods to lean on? (I bet they don't. I bet they scream bloody murder to be cured or healed or whatever else they need and didn't plan for.) Honestly, the fear this produces... here's a clue. Insurance companies don't give a damn about you NOW so long as you pay your premium on time. And as soon as you need them they look for the fastest way out of paying for what you pay them to handle. It's their FIRST RESPONSE. The agent tells you not to worry, and their lawyers look for the out. You're scared they'll treat you like a number, which they already DO. ~Bang Edited June 29, 2012 by Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Not a fan, but at least that's a tax everybody pays. This is a fine for not purchasing a service. By forcing people to purchase health insurance, you're just begging for the companies to not give a **** about service because you have no choice but to get it. I don't understand this so maybe I'm missing something - did this law somehow eliminate/reduce competition in the marketplace? Most people don't have a choice in what insurance company they get to use anyway - they just go with whatever insurance company their place of employment worked a deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Honestly, the fear this produces... here's a clue. Insurance companies don't give a damn about you NOW so long as you pay your premium on time.And as soon as you need them they look for the fastest way out of paying for what you pay them to handle. It's their FIRST RESPONSE. The agent tells you not to worry, and their lawyers look for the out. You're scared they'll treat you like a number, which they already DO. ~Bang Which is why I want a health insurance system that isn't tied to employment. I want my employer to give me money to put towards health insurance as I see fit. That way I'm spending my own money on my own health insurance, meaning I'm looking out for the best price and the best service. With employment-based health insurance, someone else is spending their money on me, which means they're looking for the cheapest, not the best quality. If we're spending government money, then we're spending someone else's money on ourselves so we'll get the best thing available costs-be-damned since it's not our money. If we chose our own health insurance, companies would have to cater to us to keep our business or risk losing us to someone who will treat us better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duckus Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) If we chose our own health insurance, companies would have to cater to us to keep our business or risk losing us to someone who will treat us better. What part of the law makes it so people don't chose their own health insurance? Why would forcing more people into a market filled with private companies lower competition? Edit - never mind, i see what you are talking about. Gotcha I think. Edited June 29, 2012 by Duckus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now