SCOTUS upholds Affordable Care Act

[Tchocky]

http://www.coveritlive.com/index2.php/option=com_altcaster/task=viewaltcast/template=/altcast_code=9101ad5fcd/ipod=y/droidwidth=300


From the Scotus blog live viewer. Interesting!

[mookiemookie]

They struck down the Stolen Valor Act. :nope:

[Tchocky]

Yeah, that's one of those laws that feels right but reads wrong. I can see how it didn't pass First Amendment scrutiny, the courts opinion seems to leave plenty of room to relegislate, though.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah, that's one of those laws that feels right but reads wrong. I can see how it didn't pass First Amendment scrutiny, the courts opinion seems to leave plenty of room to relegislate, though.

There is plenty of room now to call anything a "tax" and then mandate it under the premise it is a tax.

The ruling relied on a technical explanation of how the individual mandate could be categorized. Roberts, in the opinion, said the mandate could not be upheld under the Constitution's Commerce Clause. However, it could be upheld under the government's power to tax.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/supreme-court-upholds-individual-mandate-obamacare-survives/#ixzz1z6ESIZS3

From here on out whatever the government wants from the people it will be labelled as a tax.

[Tchocky]

There is plenty of room now to call anything a "tax" and then mandate it under the premise it is a tax.
I was talking about the Stolen Valor Act :up:

I see what you mean about the tax clause setting a rather wide precedent. However, I think the only reason that this was argued under the Commerce Clause and not the taxing power is because all involved knew that passing the Act and selling it to the people would have been impossible had it been classified as a tax.

[TFatseas]

The Government argues to the Court that it is not a tax and SCOTUS upholds it because it IS a tax?

:doh:

[Skybird]

I see it promises to become a happy-debate-day in America again today! :O: The question is: will Neal take the opportunity and ask Germany for political asylum, or will he face the challenge and dares to return? :D

[AVGWarhawk]

I was talking about the Stolen Valor Act :up:

I see what you mean about the tax clause setting a rather wide precedent. However, I think the only reason that this was argued under the Commerce Clause and not the taxing power is because all involved knew that passing the Act and selling it to the people would have been impossible had it been classified as a tax.

In short..we were hoodwinked. Welcome to the USA :yeah:

[AVGWarhawk]

I see it promises to become a happy-debate-day in America again today! :O: The question is: will Neal take the opportunity and ask Germany for political asylum, or will he face the challenge and dares to return? :D

There is no debating. It is only opening our checkbooks to pay for everyone's well being. It is additional cash to help those who develop lung cancer from cigarettes purchased on government subsidized EBT cards. Now we can provide chemo! Awesome! :yeah:

I recommend all invest in General Electric Healthcare.

[Tchocky]

The Government argues to the Court that it is not a tax and SCOTUS upholds it because it IS a tax?

:doh:

The Solicitor General did advance the tax argument. Admittedly it was not the administrations main argument.



AVG- I don't think anyone was hoodwinked in this.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Opinion is linked above. The taxing element is around page 32 onwards

[AVGWarhawk]

The Solicitor General did advance the tax argument. Admittedly it was not the administrations main argument.



AVG- I don't think anyone was hoodwinked in this.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Opinion is linked above. The taxing element is around page 32 onwards

Either way today's decision has opened a floodgate. From here on out any new program will be mandated and funded by taxes. It is not a commerce type transaction then.

[Bilge_Rat]

It would have been surprising if SCOTUS had ruled the Health Care Law unconstitutional. This is and always has been a political debate, it is for Congress and elected politicians to decide this issue. Congress wanted to pass the hot potato to SCOTUS and it has now been handed back.

[AVGWarhawk]

It would have been surprising if SCOTUS had ruled the Health Care Law unconstitutional. This is and always has been a political debate, it is for Congress and elected politicians to decide this issue. Congress wanted to pass the hot potato to SCOTUS and it has now been handed back.

There are many parts I like about the new legislation. What I don't like is mincing words such as commerce clause and taxes. It opens a new door on other proposed "programs."

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

:stare: . . . :stare: . . . :06: . . . :hmmm: VOTE ROMNEY! ROMNEY IS BEST!


...even if he is crook too...

[vienna]

What is particularly interesting in the last two SCOTUS rulings is the position of the Chief Justice in the decisions. Roberts has sided with the "liberal" arm of the Court in both decisions; given that his initial appointment was seen as a means of blunting the "liberal" impact on Court decisions, does this indicate a swing away from the hard "conservative" block seen in prior decisions? Is Roberrts going over to the "Dark Side" (at least in the eyes of the Tea Party faction)? It has been seen in the past how some Chief Justices and Associate Justices have had their percieved philosophical leanings coming into the Court tempered by having spent some time actually on the Court bench. Is this an indicator of a possible future swing away from strict ideology?... :hmm2:

...

[AVGWarhawk]

:stare: . . . :stare: . . . :06: . . . :hmmm: VOTE ROMNEY! ROMNEY IS BEST!


...even if he is crook too...


Not really, he flipped flopped on this issue.

[AVGWarhawk]

What is particularly interesting in the last two SCOTUS rulings is the position of the Chief Justice in the decisions. Roberts has sided with the "liberal" arm of the Court in both decisions; given that his initial appointment was seen as a means of blunting the "liberal" impact on Court decisions, does this indicate a swing away from the hard "conservative" block seen in prior decisions? Is Roberrts going over to the "Dark Side" (at least in the eyes of the Tea Party faction)? It has been seen in the past how some Chief Justices and Associate Justices have had their percieved philosophical leanings coming into the Court tempered by having spent some time actually on the Court bench. Is this an indicator of a possible future swing away from strict ideology?... :hmm2:

...

I don't really think he sees it a a siding in any capacity. I believe he has interpreted correctly. Under the commerce clause it does not fly. Call it a tax and it does fly according to the Constitution.

[vienna]

I don't really think he sees it a a siding in any capacity. I believe he has interpreted correctly. Under the commerce clause it does not fly. Call it a tax and it does fly according to the Constitution.


Oh. I agree. In the light of the Constitution, it is a sound decsion. I was more referring to the ideological expectations of those who championed his appointment in the first place. There were and still are expectations from the rather more conservative factions that "their" Justices will fall in line, in lockstep, to hold back the intents of the "liberals". As I pointed out, ideologies can and are tempered by actual experience on the bench and exposure to other well thought out and considered viewpoints. (I do exclude Justice Thomas from this effect: anyone who does not even ask questions or raises issues on Court matters for as long as Thomas has and who apprently just functions as a "rubber stamp" to the Court's more "conservative" elements is doing little else than taking up space and breathable air)...

Another interesting question may be how Robert's reframing of the issue from a Commerce Clause issue to one of a taxation issue in order to "achieve" a decision will fly with the Tea Party and other who decry "judicial activisim"? Or is this to be seen as just Roberts "letting down the side"?...

...

[August]

What I don't understand about the SJC's ruling is how can they call it a tax when it's not being paid to the government? Does Blue Cross now have the power to tax individuals as well?

[Tchocky]

Page 32 of the opinion - The tax being considered is the extra payment to the IRS made when you don't purchase insurance.

[vienna]

As a BTW: did anyone else notice how the thread about the German Court decision banning circumcision is getting way more replies than the two threads about the SCOTUS Obamacare decision? Subsimmers (most of us male) seem to have vividly indicated their priorities... :D

...

[AVGWarhawk]

What I don't understand about the SJC's ruling is how can they call it a tax when it's not being paid to the government? Does Blue Cross now have the power to tax individuals as well?

It's a play on words August. It's like saying I was "billed" or I was "invoiced." Money is being paid to the government in a form of a tax. Not a bill or invoice for healthcare. Blue Cross has the power to send you a bill or invoice. Depends on what you chose to call it. :up:

[AVGWarhawk]

As a BTW: did anyone else notice how the thread about the German Court decision banning circumcision is getting way more replies than the two threads about the SCOTUS Obamacare decision? Subsimmers (most of us male) seem to have vividly indicated their priorities... :D

...

Off with their heads.

:haha:

[andwii]

There is no debating. It is only opening our checkbooks to pay for everyone's well being. It is additional cash to help those who develop lung cancer from cigarettes purchased on government subsidized EBT cards. Now we can provide chemo! Awesome! :yeah:

I recommend all invest in General Electric Healthcare.

lol

anyway I cant go on facebook at the moment, to many people celebrating when they dont even know whats about to hit em. Most people I know can't afford health care, so they are going to get screwed out of it and end up paying a fine. I dont have the exact quote but obama said they wont raise taxes on couples making less then 250,000 dollars. Once again another obama lie as this is essentially at tax (by definition used today). Also in new york you cant have anything larger then a 20 Oz of pop, I forsee with this law upheald as a tax, the government will soon make a tax on those who drink soda.

We are from the government, and we are here to help.

[AVGWarhawk]

lol

anyway I cant go on facebook at the moment, to many people celebrating when they dont even know whats about to hit em. Most people I know can't afford health care, so they are going to get screwed out of it and end up paying a fine. I dont have the exact quote but obama said they wont raise taxes on couples making less then 250,000 dollars. Once again another obama lie as this is essentially at tax (by definition used today). Also in new york you cant have anything larger then a 20 Oz of pop, I forsee with this law upheald as a tax, the government will soon make a tax on those who drink soda.



Like I stated. This is a precursor of things to come. It is not a commerce clause. It's a tax! :D

[Bilge_Rat]

again it all depends what Roberts is trying to achieve. As Chief Justice of SCOTUS ( a dream job for any lawyer btw), he has to worry about what effect the ruling has on the country now and for centuries to come.

He could just as easily justified that the law was unconstitutional. But his Court would then be viewed as totally partisan and worse, all the tough issues that Congress refuses to deal with would be dumped on SCOTUS's lap.

Justifying it under the "commerce" clause was becoming more and more of a stretch also and opened the Court to more of this type of political cases in the future. Justifying it under the general power to tax basically throws all these issues back to Congress where they belong. Actually a smart play if that is what he was trying to achieve.

[Sea Demon]

lol

anyway I cant go on facebook at the moment, to many people celebrating when they dont even know whats about to hit em. Most people I know can't afford health care, so they are going to get screwed out of it and end up paying a fine.

I think those are the parasite class. I think they believe their fellow taxpayers will pay a higher tax to cover theirs. Some jerk calling in on our local radio said as much this morning.

You're right though, they're going to get hit. And they get what they deserve. I'm just looking for somebody on the other side of the aisle to bring up legislation requiring all citizens to own a gun to fulfill 2nd Amendment guarantees.....or pay a tax. The precedent has been set for anything now. It's just a matter of a vote, and a signature.

The liberals in this country are jerks. Why so many supporters of this law (ala Unions) are requesting waivers from the law they fought so hard to get? 20% of new waivers in Pelosi's lefty district nonetheless.

[Tribesman]

I dont have the exact quote but obama said they wont raise taxes on couples making less then 250,000 dollars.
No he didn't, he said he won't raise one type of tax.

Also in new york you cant have anything larger then a 20 Oz of pop, I forsee with this law upheald as a tax, the government will soon make a tax on those who drink soda.

Well despite that not being true lets see how your foresight is.
You already are taxed on soda in some states and some outlets, plus your taxes already go to the manufacturers and their suppliers so you when you buy soda you again pay for their product which you already paid for.

[vienna]

Justifying it under the "commerce" clause was becoming more and more of a stretch also and opened the Court to more of this type of political cases in the future. Justifying it under the general power to tax basically throws all these issues back to Congress where they belong. Actually a smart play if that is what he was trying to achieve.


This is a very valid observation. I also have the feeling Roberts was perhaps a liite weary of being the "loyal conservative" of the Court and may have wished to exert a bit of differentiation from the more rabid elements of the Right. I have been listening to Hannity on the radio, and ,as expected, hRoberts is being excoriated for his efforts to justify the decision as a tax. It is oddly amusing the same Tea Party factions who yelled loud and often that Obamacare was really a tax in sheep's clothing for all these months are now enraged SCOTUS has found Obamacare constitutional as a tax and not a "penalty". "Daughter, sister, daughter, sister, daughter, sister..."

...

[Sea Demon]

No he didn't, he said he won't raise one type of tax.

Boy...that was hard....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U

[Tribesman]

The liberals in this country are jerks.
Welcome back. How is Rush?

Why so many supporters of this law (ala Unions) are requesting waivers from the law they fought so hard to get?
Wow thats a hard one isn't it.
Is it because they can get a waiver for the new scheme as their existing scheme complies already.

[Tribesman]

Boy...that was hard....
Try again Demon
all relate to income which is why its specific to an income bracket:woot:

Hey I just bought two tanks of gas Obama said I wouldn't pay more tax but I got taxed on both tanks:rotfl2:

[Sea Demon]

Welcome back. How is Rush?


Wow thats a hard one isn't it.
Is it because they can get a waiver for the new scheme as their existing scheme complies already.

I don't know Rush. But yes to work towards a law subjecting your fellow citizens to something they don't want, passing it in a lame duck session after they lost their majority, then wanting waivers out of it after it passes makes someone a jerk on all counts.

[Sea Demon]

Try again Demon
all relate to income which is why its specific to an income bracket:woot:

Hey I just bought two tanks of gas Obama said I wouldn't pay more tax but I got taxed on both tanks:rotfl2:

You make absolutely zero sense.... You're example above simply does not relate in any way. Obama is on record saying what he said. And voters will remember. History proves that.

[Tribesman]

I don't know Rush. But yes to work towards a law subjecting your fellow citizens to something they don't want, passing it in a lame duck session, then wanting waivers out of it after it passes makes someone a jerk on all counts.
No, the people who don't apply for waivers on any expense when they are entitled to it are the ones who are the jerks.
Ask any accountant, they all count:rotfl2:

[Sea Demon]

No, the people who don't apply for waivers on any expense when they are entitled to it are the ones who are the jerks.
Ask any accountant, they all count:rotfl2:

If you don't want it, and refuse to live by it, don't support and vote for it. Very simple. Especially during a lame duck session after the voters removed you from the majority.

Nobody is "entitled" to a waiver of any law. The word "entitled" is grossly misused by yourself.

[Tribesman]

You make absolutely zero sense
If your line if reasoning held true then someone wouldn't be paying extra sales tax and fuel tax if they bought more.
So of course the only tax it was about is those based on income...like the tax in the clip you kindly provided :yeah:

And voters will remember. History proves that.
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Politicians throughout history have relied on voters being forgetful mugs, History proves again and again that they are mainly correct.

If you don't want it, and refuse to live by it, don't support and vote for it.

That makes no sense, it gives them what they want.
Nobody is "entitled" to a waiver of any law.
Wow, well should I go for "the tax man must love you" or should I go for "terms and conditions apply".

The word "entitled" is grossly misused by yourself.
The word says exactly what it says

[vienna]

Politicians throughout history have relied on voters being forgetful mugs, History proves again and again that they are mainly correct.


And history has also shown politicians have relied on voters not only forgetting but, also, accepting the version of history the politicians wish you to believe... :yep:

...

[Sea Demon]

If your line if reasoning held true then someone wouldn't be paying extra sales tax and fuel tax if they bought more.
So of course the only tax it was about is those based on income...like the tax in the clip you kindly provided

I don't think you listened to Obama in the clip. He is clear about what tax (taxes)he means. Either that, or you simply refuse to hear what he is saying because it doesn't support what you were trying to imply. It's OK...the voters in my country do see this fraud for what he is. And many today see this ruling in the SCOTUS for what it is.

[Tribesman]

I don't think you listened to Obama in the clip.
List the taxes, what do they apply to.
He is clear about what tax (taxes)he means.
Yes very clear, he even sets out an income bracket to staple it down.

[August]

It's a play on words August. It's like saying I was "billed" or I was "invoiced." Money is being paid to the government in a form of a tax. Not a bill or invoice for healthcare. Blue Cross has the power to send you a bill or invoice. Depends on what you chose to call it. :up:


:salute: That's what I figured.

I just wish that if we were going to go down this route we'd have done it completely. A real National Health Care service with it's own doctors, nurses and facilities. Mandated insurance will benefit nobody except the insurance companies.

The cost of the group plan at my work rose by 15% last year without all these expensive game changers. I can't wait to see what they'll go to next year now that they have the force of law.

[mookiemookie]

I just wish that if we were going to go down this route we'd have done it completely. A real National Health Care service with it's own doctors, nurses and facilities. Mandated insurance will benefit nobody except the insurance companies.


Of course they could have gone the other direction. Gone with a true free market and removed all of the special perks and protections that the insurance racket gets - make them accountable to anti-trust law by removing the McCarran Ferguson Act. But that wouldn't have been as profitable to the insurance companies, so it was easier to lead a PR battle that pretended like we had a free market before and the PPACA was eeeeeeevil. But they ended up winning either way as they wrote the freakin' bill. Nifty, that. :ping:

[August]

again it all depends what Roberts is trying to achieve. As Chief Justice of SCOTUS ( a dream job for any lawyer btw), he has to worry about what effect the ruling has on the country now and for centuries to come.

He could just as easily justified that the law was unconstitutional. But his Court would then be viewed as totally partisan and worse, all the tough issues that Congress refuses to deal with would be dumped on SCOTUS's lap.

Justifying it under the "commerce" clause was becoming more and more of a stretch also and opened the Court to more of this type of political cases in the future. Justifying it under the general power to tax basically throws all these issues back to Congress where they belong. Actually a smart play if that is what he was trying to achieve.

I think George Will agrees with you:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-supreme-court-gives-conservatives-a-consolation-prize/2012/06/28/gJQAWyhY9V_print.html

[yubba]

:salute: That's what I figured.

I just wish that if we were going to go down this route we'd have done it completely. A real National Health Care service with it's own doctors, nurses and facilities. Mandated insurance will benefit nobody except the insurance companies.

The cost of the group plan at my work rose by 15% last year without all these expensive game changers. I can't wait to see what they'll go to next year now that they have the force of law.
I think we got that it's called the Veterans Administration so you want that kind of care, I hear that it's a real mess, I'm fixin to find out it seems that I was living and serving my country on a toxic waste dump at Camp Lejeune
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Lejeune_water_contamination I would like too see the looks on the occupiers faces now they got too pay for their health care.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yubba has a point. Walter Reed was a disgrace. It took a year to clean it up. I really do not see the government providing the Cadillac of facilities.

[Stealhead]

Yubba has a point. Walter Reed was a disgrace. It took a year to clean it up. I really do not see the government providing the Cadillac of facilities.

VA wise it just depends some are really good some are average others are not good.They always have troubles like this it seems during and shortly after Vietnam many VA hospitals where horrible we seem to like to go to war but we seem to forget to be able to properly treat the wounded of that war because we under fund the the VA.It all depends and sometime the VA sends you to a non VA doctor my dad had cataract surgery and the VA sent him to an outside specialist his VA benefits covered it of course.

Of course there is no way they would be able to provide the best facilities to everyone all over the US.

[August]

There's nothing wrong with the VA that isn't mirrored in civilian hospitals. Every time i've gone to them it's been a positive experience all around.

[yubba]

Yubba has a point. Walter Reed was a disgrace. It took a year to clean it up. I really do not see the government providing the Cadillac of facilities.
Yes Walter Reed was a disgrace, If that would have happen when Obama was in office we would have never heard about it, so if this is so great why did over a thousand companies apply for waivers, all Obama's buddies will be emune from this mess, and you will be left to pay the piper, so what happen to equal justise for all ,,?? price of fuel is up, price of food is up so, can you afford too have more of your wealth redistrabuted, more money out of your pocket and sent to the muslim brotherhood, less money going to goods and services, and the stock market will reflect it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Walter Reed was scandalous. There is no excuse. Because it possibly mirrored a civilian hospital does not make it OK. These are men and women who protect our freedom. They deserve better from DC. Johns Hopkins got a new wing specifically for children. Walter Reed could not get a fresh coat of paint in the rooms.

[Sailor Steve]

There's nothing wrong with the VA that isn't mirrored in civilian hospitals. Every time i've gone to them it's been a positive experience all around.
The George E. Whalen VA Medical Center here in Salt Lake City is outstanding.

[Tribesman]

I find it interesting that those who have been getting the government healthcare and using the facilities are coming across better more reasoned and more informed, it also held true in the main when the last VA topic came up.
August has been entirely consistant from the first episodes of this series of "obamacare" episodes which reflects well on him.

What is also interesting is yubbas approach both in this topic and his own concurrent version, it does raise some very cutting questions about his views and his claims.

[August]

Walter Reed was scandalous. There is no excuse. Because it possibly mirrored a civilian hospital does not make it OK. These are men and women who protect our freedom. They deserve better from DC. Johns Hopkins got a new wing specifically for children. Walter Reed could not get a fresh coat of paint in the rooms.

Completely agree but the point that the VA is no different than civilian hospitals remains.

[AVGWarhawk]

Walter Reed is the first stop for a majority of war wounded. It was not about the quality of care at Walter Reed. It was about the building itself. A house built of crap loaded with antique furniture of good quality still smells of crap. A coworker of mine(Air Force) uses the VA in Baltimore. I do not hear any accolades for the facility. However, I would believe that by and large the VA facilities in the nation are of good quality and staffed with concerned caring doctors/nurses.

[AVGWarhawk]

Completely agree but the point that the VA is no different than civilian hospitals remains.

My point is Walter Reed is supposed to be the cream of the crop for hospital servicing our war wounded. The hospital was in such disarray structurally. I'm inclined to believe other facilities operated by the Fed for the civilians will also languish on their foundation as well. The Fed had no issue letting Walter Reed languish.

[Armistead]

It's a difficult issue, but until we address all the issues regarding medical care, I don't see this working much.

The cost of how we run healthcare is silly, it's an old model, no one fixes it because it has become highly profitable for all involved for pharma, corporate medicine, lawyers, etc... Worse, as we are failing in competing in the global economy, the middle class is dying, before most employers offered reasonable insurance, today, you're lucky to get it and often if you can it's too expensive.

As long as health and medical care is connected to mass profits, it will continue to fail. It's sad that we live in a nation where profits come before
pain and suffering.

[AVGWarhawk]

I agree. Months ago when heated debate on the issue ensued I stated the system is broken. Nothing is being fixed. Throwing more money at the systems seems to be the plan. Not much of a plan. However, I do believe some of the legislation is good. Longer coverage for kids. Pre-existing conditions are covered. The insurance folks are in it for profit and care very little for the patient. Tort reform is also another item that needs to be addressed.

[Skybird]

I think the sentence has an implication that is not that obvious, but is probably strategically much more decisive then the obvious fact that the costs for Obamacare will increase the American debt level.

The financial sector has scored another victory in securing growing influence in American politics.

From preventing campaign fund limits (Montana) to increasing the deficit of the budget so that the state becomes more depending and vuklnerabvle for the fincial service lobby - it is about banks and insurance companies having trowing inlfuence in decision making. The more the other is depending on you, the less he is capable to decide indepedent from your demands, or against your interests.

[Stealhead]

Walter Reed is the first stop for a majority of war wounded. It was not about the quality of care at Walter Reed. It was about the building itself. A house built of crap loaded with antique furniture of good quality still smells of crap. A coworker of mine(Air Force) uses the VA in Baltimore. I do not hear any accolades for the facility. However, I would believe that by and large the VA facilities in the nation are of good quality and staffed with concerned caring doctors/nurses.

Actually this is incorrect the first major medical facility a seriously injured member of the military will enter is a Regional Medical Center one that many wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan stay at is in Germany Landstuhl Regional Medical Center this is one of the best facilities in the world it is the best US operated medical center outside the United States I should know While stationed in Germany I went there several times never for serious injury I went there for regular care.I did however along with many other Army and Air Force members assigned to the region visit with wounded troops there.If you are seriously injured you will stay at a regional medical center until stable enough to return to the US or if you suffered a less serious injury you stay at the regional center until well and go back to your assignment.

You should see how bad many on base facilities are on many of our military bases the housing for both married and enlisted it is in serious disrepair at many bases one of the things that is done when ever a congressman visits a military base they (if a good commander is in charge) get shown just how bad many buildings are at many bases we are still using buildings put up in the 50s or 60s that should have been remodeled a few times.It is not something that you will hear about very often but that should come as no surprise.They just don't want to spend the money.Funny thing is they will spend large sums on one or two brand new facilities but leave the rest to be held together with duct tape.

[August]

The Fed had no issue letting Walter Reed languish.

As would any civilian run facility in similar circumstances. Peacetime always brings budget cuts and like usual the military is slow to get onto a war footing.

The problems at Walter Reed, while serious, were blown way out of proportion by a media eager for any opportunity to bash the administration. Once they were made public they were addressed. Civilian hospitals are by definition public. I don't believe they would be allowed to get to that state.

[AVGWarhawk]

The financial sector has scored another victory in securing growing influence in American politics

Invest in General Electric :yep:

Actually this is incorrect the first major medical facility a seriously injured member of the military will enter is a Regional Medical Center one that many wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan stay at is in Germany Landstuhl Regional Medical Center this is one of the best facilities in the world it is the best US operated medical center outside the United States

As it should be. Walter Reed is the first stop here in the states.

Civilian hospitals are by definition public.

By definition but I believe privately owned and staffed by contracted on doctors/nurses. My father(ER physician) was part of a group contracted on to run the ER. Hospitals are a business certainly.

[August]

By definition but I believe privately owned and staffed by contracted on doctors/nurses. My father(ER physician) was part of a group contracted on to run the ER. Hospitals are a business certainly.

The point I was (probably badly) trying to make is that military folks are a lot more likely to deal with some peeling paint and leaky ceilings with a lot less complaints than civilians ever would.

But whatever the state of the facilities it would still be better than being made homeless to pay for treatment, let alone an operation out of pocket.

[AVGWarhawk]

The point I was (probably badly) trying to make is that military folks are a lot more likely to deal with some peeling paint and leaky ceilings with a lot less complaints than civilians ever would.

But whatever the state of the facilities it would still be better than being made homeless to pay for treatment, let alone an operation out of pocket.

Yes, you are probably correct on the military folks. The civilians on the other hand would not only complain but sue.

[Stealhead]

Yes, you are probably correct on the military folks. The civilians on the other hand would not only complain but sue.

That seems to be the mentality suing. I always want to laugh when I hear someone say how they would rather die than go to X hospital I am fairly sure in the Us your likelihood to die form some sort of negligence while in a hospital is about the same.

Of course I my be completely incorrect here but does't the fact that everybody wants to sue these days one of the things that drove up the cost of insurance and medical care in the first place? Some years back in Florida they passed a law Good Samaritan law which more or less requires that if you see an accident on the road you are supposed to at least call for help.Well some one ended up getting sued because they pulled a guy from burning car saving his live but it did further injure the person so the jerk suied the guy that saved his life because he caused a back injury while pulling the guy to safety "Thanks for saving my life buddy now I will sue you because you hurt my back saving me" anyway the case got thrown out of court because the person had no recourse it was save the guy and perhaps injure him or let him die. After that they changed the law so that you could not sue someone for helping you.

To be honest if I had some way of knowing that the person I might try to save or help would try and sue for it I would not help them.

[AVGWarhawk]

You are correct Steelhead. Tort reform is something that is in dire need of fixing. The "sue" factor has driven up malpractice/negligence insurance.

[yubba]

You are correct Steelhead. Tort reform is something that is in dire need of fixing. The "sue" factor has driven up malpractice/negligence insurance.
Bingo give that man a cookie, the malpractice insurance has drove health care through the roof, a fix is to put a cap on these law suits, and then go after the fraud, I know I have bad mouthed the VA but do you want the government ration-ing health care when they can't run a cementary. silly me left out an h

[August]

I am fairly sure in the Us your likelihood to die form some sort of negligence while in a hospital is about the same.

Hmm, I don't think I can agree with that. One local hospital around here operated on the wrong spot of a patient 5 times in just a couple year period. I've personally witnessed a vast difference between the patient care at that particular hospital and say the one that performed my heart surgery which is only a couple miles away, so there are definitely some differences in the quality of care depending on where you go.

I'm certainly no fan of big government but I also think that there are some things that shouldn't be all about money. A persons health is one of them.

[mookiemookie]

You are correct Steelhead. Tort reform is something that is in dire need of fixing. The "sue" factor has driven up malpractice/negligence insurance.

Why has tort reform not brought down the cost of insurance in Texas? It's been done here and had none of the wonderful effects that people say that tort reform is supposed to have. (http://www.statesman.com/news/local/report-texas-tort-law-has-failed-to-reduce-1910690.html)

[yubba]

Hmm, I don't think I can agree with that. One local hospital around here operated on the wrong spot of a patient 5 times in just a couple year period. I've personally witnessed a vast difference between the patient care at that particular hospital and say the one that performed my heart surgery which is only a couple miles away, so there are definitely some differences in the quality of care depending on where you go.

I'm certainly no fan of big government but I also think that there are some things that shouldn't be all about money. A persons health is one of them.
Well the government is running Social Security and Medicare and what is happening to these two government run enities, I know you can say it,,,.... they are going broke that's what is going on with these two government run enities, so how is Obama care going to be different ?????

[Onkel Neal]

I see it promises to become a happy-debate-day in America again today! :O: The question is: will Neal take the opportunity and ask Germany for political asylum, or will he face the challenge and dares to return? :D

Germany rejected my appeal for asylum, so did France. I guess I'm going home :(

[Garion]

Come to Scotland Neal, yer more than welcome :woot:

Cheers

Gary

[Dowly]

Germany rejected my appeal for asylum, so did France. I guess I'm going home :(

Come to Eastern Finland, PM me for precise address. Bring beer, only 3 left!
S.O.S!

EDIT: Oh and don't believe Garion.. because.. uh.. LOOK! DANCING KITTEN!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8GHf-aELjY)

EDIT2: Ok, it's just a kitten being a kitten, but.. I GOT BEER! (that you hopefully brought me)

[yubba]

I had a beer it must have been that light aircraft stuff cause I'd p-38 too much IL-2 help me.

[CaptainHaplo]

Its astounding how so many people - pretty much everyone from the casual observer to the legal and political analysts have so totally missed what has occured here.

Now everyone who has read my posts for long know I am on the "right" politically. I will say this - Judge Roberts has lost an awful lot of my respect - but not for the same reason everyone else would think.

I have lost respect for him because he is attempting to manipulate the course of the country in ways that go beyond the role he has as a Justice - much less the Chief Justice - should do. This decision was political on so many levels - and was absolutely inspired and genius. But inspired genius does not mean it was proper. It also is a huge gamble.

Politically - this did what everyone thinks on the presidential race - it gives a HUGE boost to the right. The comment in the decision that basically says "American people, you elected these morons that passed this- so deal with it yourself". It has energized the right like nothing else likely could have done. But the goal is long term - which will tie into the legal one which I will make clear in a moment.

Legally - it takes a great risk by defining something that isn't a tax as one. Notice the one point that the Court did not rule on - it ruled that the penalty is a tax - but it did NOT rule that the tax is proper and legal in and of itself. This is the reason that Roberts made this decision - the Court cannot by law rule on the legality of a tax until it has been collected - which will be 2014. This is due to the Anti-Injunction Act.

That's right - if its not repealed, it can again be challenged. This time as an unlawful tax - as a tax that is imposed for a lack of commerce. See the Commerce Clause refutation in the current Opinion. There is a reason Roberts wrote the Opinion the way he did. Not one legal analyst on all the TV shows has noticed this opening. They are too busy celebrating or wringing their hands depending on their personal politics. I have spoken to a 4 attorneys and 3 law "scholars" (aka instructors at a law university) and every one of them agreed that the opening exists to challenge this tax as unlawful and that the Court could not rule on that issue until the tax has been collected.

Now - consider the impact - both long and short term - of this decision. The decision has removed any left wing claim that the court is merely a political entity - thus insuring that there will be no immediate claims of partisanship should the Court strike down the tax as unlawful in the future. The decision has significantly enhanced the republican candidate for president chances for winning by mobilizing not only the base, but many moderate and independents. Finally, one must consider the current makeup of the court. 4 Members are over 70.

At 79, the staunch liberal Ginsburg is the most likely to retire (or pass) due to age. Scalia, the "rabid" conservative is 76, but is in excellent health and is considered too driven to consider retirement soon. Kennedy and Breyer, 75 and 73 respectively, may also consider leaving the court, though it is more likley that they would be driven to it by health concerns rather than mere age. Given that they are consider either swing or left votes, the balance would be very different after such a change.

One departure would drastically modify the makeup of the court, especially considering that it is likely to be Ginsburg who leaves. It is unlikely that she will stay until she is 81 or later (remember that 2014 date - 2 years from now). The replacement will be chosen by the next president - and as such Roberts has gambled that his action will mean a more conservative justice will replace Ginsburg in the future due to a Romney win. Given that it would be be in the 2015 time frame before a case challenging the tax would make it to the Supreme Court, a Romney win will likely mean a less liberal court - and a likely 6-3 ruling that could overturn the legality of the tax itself. This would then enable the Court to write a very strong Opinion that could further limit Congress by defining what it can and can not tax - something that has not been addressed by the Court in some time.

It is however, a grave risk. If Obama wins, the tax case will be a 5-4 decision that has done nothing but create a greater mess than what we would have faced if the law was repealed this time around. At that point, removing the funding mechanism does not insure the rest of it dies.

What is more, it is an attempt to manipulate the Republic in a way that is more than just beneath the dignity of the Court.

To credit Roberts, he thought this through. He protected the reputation of the court, limited the use of the Commerce Clause, and left open the door to not only overturn the "tax" at a later time, but insured the opportunity for the Court to limit Congressional power to tax in the future. He could not have done all of this had he gone the other direction - yet in doing this he has risked much. If Obamacare is legislatively repealed, the Court has no ability to deal with the question of the tax until some other over-reach of Congress occurs. There is no telling how long that might take or what the makeup of the Court will be.

What the future holds, no one knows. But rest assured this fight is not over by a long shot.

[mookiemookie]

My thought is that most Americans are sick of this debate. The law's gonna take effect. People are gonna realize that it isn't the end of days. They'll get some health issues taken care of that they couldn't have done before. By the end of 2014 it won't even be an issue anymore, except to the most extremist and screechy right wingers. But the rest of America will have moved on.

[vienna]

Germany rejected my appeal for asylum, so did France. I guess I'm going home :(


Ecuador, Neal, Ecuador! It's all the rage now for political asylum seekers...

...

[AVGWarhawk]

My thought is that most Americans are sick of this debate. The law's gonna take effect. People are gonna realize that it isn't the end of days. They'll get some health issues taken care of that they couldn't have done before. By the end of 2014 it won't even be an issue anymore, except to the most extremist and screechy right wingers. But the rest of America will have moved on.


America does not tire of this debate. The law needs reform as well as the reform for healthcare itself. It is not not the end of days certainly but one must realize this President is about the most radical I have witnessed. The most radical that a lot have witnessed. By and large people like 'status quo." This legislation will be a issue for sometime because it is not over yet.

[Sailor Steve]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/OandC.jpg

[mookiemookie]

one must realize this President is about the most radical I have witnessed. The most radical that a lot have witnessed. By what metric? Because Fox News says so? When Reagan passed COBRA, was he called a radical? As a result of that act, emergency rooms had to treat people, regardless of their ability to pay. Was he called a socialist?

By and large people like 'status quo." This legislation will be a issue for sometime because it is not over yet. I'll believe it when I see it. Americans have short attention spans.

[AVGWarhawk]

By what metric? Because Fox News says so? When Reagan passed COBRA, was he called a radical? As a result of that act, emergency rooms had to treat people, regardless of their ability to pay. Was he called a socialist?

I'll believe it when I see it. Americans have short attention spans.

By my metric. As stated...I have seen. Fox News...come on Mookie. No need to pigeon hole anyone who leans right as a Fox New contributor, viewer or otherwise. :O: Fox News blows as bad as the rest of them. I watch local news for the overnight killings in Baltimore. I was in my teens during the Reagan years. I did very little in the way of following current events. My days were spent following a nice arse and the beer truck.

I don't believe COBRA is as far reaching as Obamacare. COBRA did not tax...ah....penalize anyone that I'm aware of.

[Sea Demon]

I don't believe COBRA is as far reaching as Obamacare. COBRA did not tax...ah....penalize anyone that I'm aware of.

Yes. COBRA does not penalize you for non-participation. It is not compulsory. The problem that lefty Democrats cannot see is the mandate itself with the power to force behaviors or buy whatever products and services government officials want you to get. Whatever the agenda of the day is. Because of this law and the precedent set in the SCOTUS ruling, I see a huge potential for abuse.

I can see it now. Government wants everybody in those little junk electric cars. You can keep your SUV or pickup if you want...nobody will take it from you.....but you will be taxed on it. Maybe they'll require complete solar electric packages on your current home. A very expensive proposition to switch. Of course you can keep your current system if you want. Nobody will take it from you. But you will be heavily taxed on it. The loss of freedom and the potential for government abuse is substantial. Obama must go, and the Democrats who hoisted this crap on the American people need to be tossed.

[vienna]

Yes. COBRA does not penalize you for non-participation. It is not compulsory.


True, there is no penalty; however COBRA is essentially an unfunded mandate (one of the many pushed and passed under the Regan Administration on the way to the largest increase in governmant spending until recently). Hospitals, insurance companies, medical professionals and insured patients bear the burden of mandated care for uninsured ER patients and their care if addmitted as patients. So, to some extent, there is a penalty, just not in the form of an IRS assesment or fine and the penalty is carried by those other than the uninsured...

...

[Buddahaid]

Yes. COBRA does not penalize you for non-participation. It is not compulsory. The problem that lefty Democrats cannot see is the mandate itself with the power to force behaviors or buy whatever products and services government officials want you to get. Whatever the agenda of the day is. Because of this law and the precedent set in the SCOTUS ruling, I see a huge potential for abuse.

I can see it now. Government wants everybody in those little junk electric cars. You can keep your SUV or pickup if you want...nobody will take it from you.....but you will be taxed on it. Maybe they'll require complete solar electric packages on your current home. A very expensive proposition to switch. Of course you can keep your current system if you want. Nobody will take it from you. But you will be heavily taxed on it. The loss of freedom and the potential for government abuse is substantial. Obama must go, and the Democrats who hoisted this crap on the American people need to be tossed.

Oh I'm sure the "righty" republicans wouldn't dream of taking advantage of that, and you are already taxed in your large junk gas truck by paying through the nose for gas just to swagger your cajones.

[Sea Demon]

So, to some extent, there is a penalty, just not in the form of an IRS assesment or fine and the penalty is carried by those other than the uninsured...
...

Yes. And that's why people are ticked off and confused over the ruling and why the SCOTUS ruling is bogus. It's all in the language. For the purposes of the anti-injunction act they labeled it a penalty....for the purposes of the mandate, they call it a tax. An inconsistent ruling if there ever was one. This clearly should have gone down in flames. SCOTUS merely changed the language that was never used in the actual bill to uphold it as law.

Oh I'm sure the "righty" republicans wouldn't dream of taking advantage of that, and you are already taxed in your large junk gas truck by paying through the nose for gas just to swagger your cajones.

I hope they do take advantage of it when the time comes and this crap isn't repealed. And it will come.....if there is no repeal. Liberals need this shoved back in their faces with full force. I would like to see a mandate that every citizen has to have a 401(k). All citizens have to invest in privately held corporations in the stock market by "mandate" or they have to pay a tax penalty. I also like the gun mandate one that's being proposed as well. If Democrats want to play this game of mandating behaviors or requiring purchases, I say let the games begin.

[mookiemookie]

I hope they do take advantage of it when the time comes and this crap isn't repealed. And it will come.....if there is no repeal. Liberals need this shoved back in their faces with full force. I would like to see a mandate that every citizen has to have a 401(k). All citizens have to invest in privately held corporations in the stock market by "mandate" or they have to pay a tax penalty. I also like the gun mandate one that's being proposed as well. If Democrats want to play this game of mandating behaviors or requiring purchases, I say let the games begin.

Well this eeeeeevil librul already has health insurance, a 401k, an IRA and a gun. Your move. http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a384/themarbleintheoatmeal/smilies/sick0020.gif

[vienna]

Well this eeeeeevil librul already has health insurance, a 401k, an IRA and a gun.


Whoa, wait...doesn't that make you a GOP rightie?

Wait, one more qualifier: do you have either an SUV or pickup truck [gun rack option, but preferred]?... :D

...

[Sea Demon]

Well this eeeeeevil librul already has health insurance, a 401k, an IRA and a gun. Your move. http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a384/themarbleintheoatmeal/smilies/sick0020.gif

Doesn't matter what you got now mookie. You are but one person. Not everybody wants to do those things. And there are many things you may not want to be mandated to do, but will be forced into. How about government mandating you to have a fire extinguisher in every room in your house in case of fire(and you need to prove it) or be taxed? How about you have to have a burglar alarm from big donor company A installed in your home...or you have to pay a tax. How about you have to pay a new theft premium insurance policy seperate from your auto insurance to cover theft of individual car components in your vehicle....or pay a tax? How about them mandating Tornado insurance for your Texas policy even though you don't think there's a risk where you live...or pay a tax? I can come up with a million of them.

And that's the point. This Supreme Court precedent provides ample opportunity for abuse. You seem so blindly commited to big government idealogy that you can't even see how this can and will be used against you in the future. By both private corporate interests and government interests alike. This will absolutely hurt the downtrodden people you claim to want to help.

To many liberals, it's all about getting government into their lives at all costs. It's about being entitled to things that government may provide......of course at taxpayer expense. The upholding of this law is grossly radical in form. Unprecedented at all levels. Government can now tax and punish you for not participating in choices it makes for you.

If there is one guarantee, it is that Democrats will be burdened by this law, and will be stung by future mandates that will compel their participation in stuff, even though they don't wish to participate in those things. You can count on it. You can also guarantee that voters will punish Democrats (at least the sensible and honest non-parasite ones) if it's not repealed in time for implementation. It's going down, it's only a matter of time. It's really a question of how much pain the voters are willing to take.

[AVGWarhawk]

And that's the point. This Supreme Court precedent provides ample opportunity for abuse. You seem so blindly commited to big government idealogy that you can't even see how this can and will be used against you in the future. By both private corporate interests and government interests alike. This will absolutely hurt the downtrodden people you claim to want to help.

:up: Everyone is overly excited concerning the commerce clause. Great, Congress can not force a goods or service on the public. Wonderful....we will just call it a tax instead. This rule is so wide reaching it's incredible.

Government can now tax and punish you for not participating in choices it makes for you.

Exactly!

[CaptainHaplo]

:up: Everyone is overly excited concerning the commerce clause. Great, Congress can not force a goods or service on the public. Wonderful....we will just call it a tax instead. This rule is so wide reaching it's incredible.



The question of IS such a tax legal in and of itself is NOT what the Court ruled on - nor was it possible for them to do so. That is the question that will further define what Congress can and cannot legally tax. This is why Obamacare will be back in court if not legislatively overturned.

Is it legal for the government to tax you for not engaging in commerce? That question cannot be answered legally until the tax is collected. The legality of the tax will be challenged.

[AVGWarhawk]

At this point it is a can of worms and the implication have yet to really reveal themselves. Personally I believe from here on out everything that Congress wants to mandate will be construed as a tax and therefore legal. As Sea Demon points out...those in DC that know what is good for use will us this to no end.

[Tribesman]

I can see it now. Government wants everybody in those little junk electric cars. You can keep your SUV or pickup if you want...nobody will take it from you.....but you will be taxed on it. Maybe they'll require complete solar electric packages on your current home. A very expensive proposition to switch. Of course you can keep your current system if you want. Nobody will take it from you. But you will be heavily taxed on it. The loss of freedom and the potential for government abuse is substantial. Obama must go, and the Democrats who hoisted this crap on the American people need to be tossed.
So your arguement against this "new" direction is that things regarding tax will errrr.....carry on the same as they have in the past.
Then again as I said before you don't seem to understand tax which is why the taxman probably throws a party when he gets your returns.

Yes. COBRA does not penalize you for non-participation. It is not compulsory.
You are penalised for other peoples non-participation, non participants are also penalised for non participation but get some reward.
It is compulsory but you cannot see how.
It is actually worse than the current mess of a compromise as participants managed to get penalised twice while non participants only get hit once.

[August]

...from here on out everything that Congress wants to mandate will be construed as a tax and therefore legal

You gotta remember that in our country "tax" is a dirty three letter word.

Why do you think the Dems spend so much time trying to call it anything but that? Because "Authors of the largest tax increase in American history" is not a resume item that wins elections. :)

[nikimcbee]

You gotta remember that in our country "tax" is a dirty three letter word.

Why do you think the Dems spend so much time trying to call it anything but that? Because "Authors of the largest tax increase in American history" is not a resume item that wins elections. :)

read my lips, No new taxes.:haha:

So how did that work out for that person?

You're spot on August. In Ore-gone, we have don't taxes, we have "fees." They only have income tax and property tax, everything else is a fee.:haha::dead: (oh and a petrol tax)

[mookiemookie]

You gotta remember that in our country "tax" is a dirty three letter word.

Why do you think the Dems spend so much time trying to call it anything but that? Because "Authors of the largest tax increase in American history" is not a resume item that wins elections. :)

Put down the Rush Limbaugh and slowly back away. http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/article1237768.ece

We used 2019 as our baseline because that's when all of the tax provisions of the law will be in effect. In 2019, the CBO estimates, the government will see increased revenues of $104 billion, which translates to a tax increase totalling .49 percent of projected GDP.

How does that stack up?

Depending on your rounding, the tax increases from the health care law are projected to be about the size of tax increases proposed and passed in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter, in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush and in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. They would, however, be smaller than tax increases signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1982 and a temporary tax signed into law in 1968 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. They also would be significantly smaller than two tax increases passed during World War II and a tax increase in 1961. That's at least five tax increases in the United States that are larger - just since 1940 - than the one proposed in the health care law. And there are another three that are roughly equivalent.

But why bring facts into the matter when we all have our minds made up anyways?

[August]

Put down the Rush Limbaugh and slowly back away. http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/article1237768.ece

But why bring facts into the matter when we all have our minds made up anyways?

First off I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh as i've told you before.

Second you miss my point (deliberately I suspect seeing as you went right to the Rush club). "Largest in history", "largest in recent history" "largest in your young lifetime sonny", whatever it actually turns out to be, Obamacare was sold as not being a tax increase. As the Court noted it is going to be exactly that and a huge one. Time will tell who's cost projections are right.

From tax penalties for non compliance to hugely increased insurance premiums for everyone else I think it's going to be a lot more painful to the the middle class who has to pay for it all than the the laws Authors are claiming. We call it Obamacare but if you'll remember he didn't actually write it. He told Congress to come up with something that he'd sign and they did.

But when the pain hits I believe nobody is going to give a rat's patootie what you call it or who wrote it. All they will know is the Democrats are solely responsible for it (the perils of partisan legislation Pauline). They had better hope it works out like they are claiming it will or "Democrat" is going to be a dirty word in the American voting booth for a long time to come.

[yubba]

Ok, most people I know aren't makeing more than 10 dollars an hour. If they work a 40hr week that's 400 dollars. These people aren't living at home with their folks so they need a place to live that's pretty close to 500 a month, well you have to have power, that can be 100 a month, oh they need water don't want to be stinky at that job, that's 50 a month, got to have a car to go to that, 10 dollar an hr job, most I know are makeing payments let's say 200 a month and let's not forget insurance, that's 150 a month, and that car doesn't run on air, let's say they burn 10 dollars a day average that's 300 dollars a month on gas, damn you know what, you got too eat let's say 10 dollars a day you want to eat better than your car, dang that's another 300 a month. so let's see
after a months work you made 1600 dollars, but first we need to take out the taxes that's close to 200 dollars a month.
1400-500-100-50-200-150-300-300= -200 dollars and I guess you are naked because you can't afford clothes, so can any of you masterminds, tell me that this heathcare tax on everyone is a good idea.

[mookiemookie]

First off I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh as i've told you before. Well it's the partisan attack dogs like Rush that are pushing the "largest tax increase in history" narrative.

Second you miss my point (deliberately I suspect seeing as you went right to the Rush club). "Largest in history", "largest in recent history" "largest in your young lifetime sonny", whatever it actually turns out to be, Obamacare was sold as not being a tax increase. As the Court noted it is going to be exactly that and a huge one. Time will tell who's cost projections are right. Now you're moving the goalposts. You called it the largest tax increase in American history. I provided math that says it's not. Now you claim your point was something completely different.

Ah well. Whatever.

[August]

Ah well. Whatever.

So continue to ignore the point then. That's why discussions around here never get very far. You people like to seize on a single poorly chosen word and beat the horse to death just so you can avoid what the message was all about.

So go ahead and dismiss it. You won't find it so easy to do come November.

[mookiemookie]

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/10/30/129014260029170505.jpg

And the reason why discussions never get far is when person A calls person B out on their BS, person B never says "gee, you know, you're right. I was mistaken." but instead comes up with some roundabout reasoning why the clearly wrong thing they said was actually right, and person A is wrong anyways and it doesn't matter because some other fact makes person B right in any case.

"General Topics: where intellectual dishonesty, moving the goalposts, red herrings, appeal to beliefs, and false dilemmas hold sway!"

My "ah well, whatever" stands. You can't win when the "debate" is rigged from the start.

[August]

And the reason why discussions never get far is when person A calls person B out on their BS, person B never says "gee, you know, you're right. I was mistaken." but instead comes up with some roundabout reasoning why the clearly wrong thing they said was actually right, and person A is wrong anyways and it doesn't matter because some other fact makes person B right in any case.

"General Topics: where intellectual dishonesty, moving the goalposts, red herrings, appeal to beliefs, and false dilemmas hold sway!"

My "ah well, whatever" stands. You can't win when the "debate" is rigged from the start.

I suppose that happens Mookie but not any more often than the person being addressed seizing on some irrelevant technicality in order to avoid addressing the idea the post was intended to convey.

We have exchanged, what, a half dozen posts here?, and you still ignore my point. If you want to know why these discussions never get far then you need look no further than the mirror.

[mookiemookie]

If you want to know why these discussions never get far then you need look no further than the mirror.

You too.

[nikimcbee]

http://livingincinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/you-oughta-be-out-in-a-conv.jpg

I see we're making progres here.:D
http://files.mrchoquette.webnode.com/200000098-b9ff6bafa7/12s.jpg

[0rpheus]

I see we're making progres here.:D


I'm considering selling commemorative hats :har:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0ml3dhJcl1r54m4yo1_500.jpg

[yubba]

So continue to ignore the point then. That's why discussions around here never get very far. You people like to seize on a single poorly chosen word and beat the horse to death just so you can avoid what the message was all about.

So go ahead and dismiss it. You won't find it so easy to do come November.
Well, ain't that what liberals do, besides edit news stories out of context, start every sentence with, aahh see well it's ahhh well aaaaah con per hesive well you see, when they try to explain what they are doing or when they get put on the spot.:har::har::har::har:

[Onkel Neal]

Doesn't matter what you got now mookie. You are but one person. Not everybody wants to do those things. And there are many things you may not want to be mandated to do, but will be forced into. How about government mandating you to have a fire extinguisher in every room in your house in case of fire(and you need to prove it) or be taxed? How about you have to have a burglar alarm from big donor company A installed in your home...or you have to pay a tax. How about you have to pay a new theft premium insurance policy seperate from your auto insurance to cover theft of individual car components in your vehicle....or pay a tax? How about them mandating Tornado insurance for your Texas policy even though you don't think there's a risk where you live...or pay a tax? I can come up with a million of them.


To many liberals, it's all about getting government into their lives at all costs. It's about being entitled to things that government may provide......of course at taxpayer expense. The upholding of this law is grossly radical in form. Unprecedented at all levels. Government can now tax and punish you for not participating in choices it makes for you.



Let's face it: as long as hospitals must take people in need, regardless of having insurance or means to pay, the tax payer and insured patients will have to foot the bill. Maybe getting the government to mandate that people pay for the health care they demand is not such a bad thing.

[yubba]

Let's face it: as long as hospitals must take people in need, regardless of having insurance or means to pay, the tax payer and insured patients will have to foot the bill. Maybe getting the government to mandate that people pay for the health care they demand is not such a bad thing.
What, if they can't afford it, what about the 40 million people on foodstamps, what about the millions that are on unemployment, what about the millions that have fallen threw the cracks what about the millions of people that are homeless in this country.?????? Obama doesn't Care, all they want is too take more money out of our pockets and spend it, and god only knows where it will go and it won't go to quality heathcare look what happened to medicare and social security and by the way we are 16 trillion in debt can you say greece fire. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5ZvQsP48pQ&feature=related

[yubba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqKnVr3I9q8&feature=related and maybe listen to folk like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H75P5MkUJio&feature=related

[Bubblehead1980]

I have been on vacation, back today and having time to read the majority and dissenting opinions, I was ready to see what ignorance would be on the forums I frequent, both this one and group from my school.Really does amaze how ignorant people are to the long term ramifications of the precedent set by this decision.They blinded by the rhetoric of "helping people" so they are ignorant of the dangerous path of tyranny this leads us down as well as the negative effects it will have on healthcare.Costs will not be controlled, the new taxes will simply get passed along to the now mandated consumer lol, it guts 500 billion from medicare, it demands already cash strapped states to expand medicaid. Oh yea, like everything with the government, it will cost more than advertised, how will we pay for it? More debt.

Roberts certainly betrayed his country and the constitution by siding with what is nothing more than unadulterated tyranny.I respect he recognized they do not have the right to mandate the purchase under the commerce clause(it was a BS argument from day 1) but he basically handed the case to obama admin himself with his tax view, he literally pulled out of his keester, as did the admin when they used it as a secondary argument.Whether he switched it out of real conviction, to try and appear non political(which he does anyway) OR because he was blackmailed for his closeted homosexuality and switched his vote, we will probably never know, but he certainly screwed the pooch on this one.

People who have supported this, this is a real "come to jesus" moment, wake up, understand what precedent is set and join the cause of liberty, because they will infringe on your rights just as fast as they will mine or anyone else's, you are not in their club because you are a liberal Dem etc, you, to them, are a peasant, they know what is better for you than you do yourself, they do not believe in the individual.Help stop this madness, vote out Obama and every Dem in November as they are the real culprits here.

[em2nought]

Dropping my health insurance and just going to Thailand when I need something done is looking better all the time. Maybe Florida could start a plan like that, I'd join. Maybe we'd have to buy an airliner. I'm sure it would be cheaper than the alternative. :up:

[Takeda Shingen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5ZvQsP48pQ&feature=related

Confirming that sugar cookies would have averted September 11th.

[Tribesman]

both this one and group from my school
Is that the group from the law school were everyone is ignorant of the law apart from you or is it the one from the law school which is tip top and full of bright people as they only accept the best?
Damn they are the same school ain't they depending on what you are saying about them:rotfl2:

Let's face it: as long as hospitals must take people in need, regardless of having insurance or means to pay, the tax payer and insured patients will have to foot the bill. Maybe getting the government to mandate that people pay for the health care they demand is not such a bad thing.
Exactly.

Dropping my health insurance and just going to Thailand when I need something done is looking better all the time.
Won't your health insurance cover that? Switch to one that does, though India is just a big a destination as Thailand is for US citizens seeking medical treatment.

[Onkel Neal]

What, if they can't afford it, what about the 40 million people on foodstamps, what about the millions that are on unemployment, what about the millions that have fallen threw the cracks what about the millions of people that are homeless in this country.?????? Obama doesn't Care, all they want is too take more money out of our pockets and spend it, and god only knows where it will go and it won't go to quality heathcare look what happened to medicare and social security and by the way we are 16 trillion in debt can you say greece fire.

Boy, you're really excited about this aren't you? :) I think it will be fine, social security ain't dead yet and all those millions will survive somehow. They always have. Bottom line: our society expects everyone to get health care, obviously, since hospitals cannot turn away anyone, so there needs to be a system to manage it. I'm not 100% sold Obamacare is the system we need, but it is the system we have now. I'm going in with an open mind, let's see how it works out.

And about those 40 million on food stamps, how many of those do you think own iPhones and cars? ;)

[Bilge_Rat]

I have been on vacation, back today and having time to read the majority and dissenting opinions, I was ready to see what ignorance would be on the forums I frequent, both this one and group from my school.Really does amaze how ignorant people are to the long term ramifications of the precedent set by this decision.They blinded by the rhetoric of "helping people" so they are ignorant of the dangerous path of tyranny this leads us down as well as the negative effects it will have on healthcare.Costs will not be controlled, the new taxes will simply get passed along to the now mandated consumer lol, it guts 500 billion from medicare, it demands already cash strapped states to expand medicaid. Oh yea, like everything with the government, it will cost more than advertised, how will we pay for it? More debt.

Roberts certainly betrayed his country and the constitution by siding with what is nothing more than unadulterated tyranny.I respect he recognized they do not have the right to mandate the purchase under the commerce clause(it was a BS argument from day 1) but he basically handed the case to obama admin himself with his tax view, he literally pulled out of his keester, as did the admin when they used it as a secondary argument.Whether he switched it out of real conviction, to try and appear non political(which he does anyway) OR because he was blackmailed for his closeted homosexuality and switched his vote, we will probably never know, but he certainly screwed the pooch on this one.

People who have supported this, this is a real "come to jesus" moment, wake up, understand what precedent is set and join the cause of liberty, because they will infringe on your rights just as fast as they will mine or anyone else's, you are not in their club because you are a liberal Dem etc, you, to them, are a peasant, they know what is better for you than you do yourself, they do not believe in the individual.Help stop this madness, vote out Obama and every Dem in November as they are the real culprits here.

Ya know BH, sometimes I can't tell if you actually read what you write or if you just copy and paste from a right-wing extremist website...:hmm2:

[AVGWarhawk]

Boy, you're really excited about this aren't you? :) I think it will be fine, social security ain't dead yet and all those millions will survive somehow. They always have. Bottom line: our society expects everyone to get health care, obviously, since hospitals cannot turn away anyone, so there needs to be a system to manage it. I'm not 100% sold Obamacare is the system we need, but it is the system we have now. I'm going in with an open mind, let's see how it works out.

And about those 40 million on food stamps, how many of those do you think own iPhones and cars? ;)


Some of OC is needed and great. Others not so much. Personally I'm more concerned with the SCOTUS ruling of a "tax" on this. Leaves the door open to call anything a "tax."

The food stamps Ipad/Iphone financed by tax dollars is a entirely different uncontrolled issue and thread. My head hurts just thinking about it.

[nikimcbee]

Some of OC is needed and great. Others not so much. Personally I'm more concerned with the SCOTUS ruling of a "tax" on this. Leaves the door open to call anything a "tax."

The food stamps Ipad/Iphone financed by tax dollars is a entirely different uncontrolled issue and thread. My head hurts just thinking about it.

A post count tax?:doh:

[mookiemookie]

A post count tax?:doh:

If that's the case, then jim is going to be working in the salt mines for the next 1000 years.

[nikimcbee]

If that's the case, then jim is going to be working in the salt mines for the next 1000 years.

That sounds like a great excercise program.:dead:

[AVGWarhawk]

If that's the case, then jim is going to be working in the salt mines for the next 1000 years.


I don't know if Jim will actually be working for those 1000 years but I'm willing to bet the salt in the mine will preserve Jim for 1000 years for the archaeologists to find. :D

[Onkel Neal]

If that's the case, then jim is going to be working in the salt mines for the next 1000 years.


:rotfl2:

[Sailor Steve]

Ya know BH, sometimes I can't tell if you actually read what you write or if you just copy and paste from a right-wing extremist website...:hmm2:
He writes his own stuff. Even right-wing extremist websites know how to use proper grammar. You are right, though. He is a right-wing extremist and can't see it.

[Ducimus]

I have to say, i have a lot of fun watching people foam at the mouth over this health care issue. There's so much ignorance, and preconcieved notions being tossed around its amazing, even by those who claim not to be ignorant and enlightened. Partisan blinders are so much fun to watch.

I'm just going to sit here with my bag of popcorn and see how it all pans out whilst watching the wingnuts, windmills and other earthly endeavors.

[yubba]

Boy, you're really excited about this aren't you? :) I think it will be fine, social security ain't dead yet and all those millions will survive somehow. They always have. Bottom line: our society expects everyone to get health care, obviously, since hospitals cannot turn away anyone, so there needs to be a system to manage it. I'm not 100% sold Obamacare is the system we need, but it is the system we have now. I'm going in with an open mind, let's see how it works out.

And about those 40 million on food stamps, how many of those do you think own iPhones and cars? ;)
No I'm dissappointed, and disgusted how this bill was passed, and how it was upheld, and how waivers have been given, so if this is so great why is there a need for waivers, you know what's worst than crowney capitalism, it's crowney socialism. So happy dependence day and welcome to a Post Constitutional America. Remember it was unfair taxes that started the first revolution, watching my country turned into a european socalistic crap hole sickens me.

[Onkel Neal]

No I'm dissappointed, and disgusted how this bill was passed, and how it was upheld, and how waivers have been given, so if this is so great why is there a need for waivers, you know what's worst than crowney capitalism, it's crowney socialism. So happy dependence day and welcome to a Post Constitutional America. Remember it was unfair taxes that started the first revolution, watching my country turned into a european socalistic crap hole sickens me.

Move to Australia! :)

[Tribesman]

Move to Australia!
But they have government health care and taxes and waivers and subsidies and taxis and submarines and wallabies.
Its raveny socafism of an antipodean nature, if its so great why have they got wallabies?

[yubba]

Move to Australia! :)
Why should, I move, I like the lay of the land just fine, your are just going to have to deal with a freedom love-ing conservative like me and millions of others like me, and if I can throw a monkey wrench into the workings of tyranny, I will, welcome too the revolution.:O: So how many people do you think listen too Beck, Hannity, Levin , Doc Savage, Rusty Humpheres, and countless others?????? almost forgot Rush silly me.,, oh I bet it's alot,

[Bubblehead1980]

How am I extreme? I simply want the government to abide by the constitution and vehemently oppose elected leaders such as obama who refuse to do so.I oppose emotion based politics which inspire policies that strip liberties under the guise of "helping" people(obamacare) just as much as I oppose policies that strip liberties under the guise of security, namely the patriot act or ndaa.How is that extreme? it is not! I oppose policies of discrimination(affirmative action) and promote those that judge one based on merit, that is not extreme, that is just rational, sound thinking and most of , it is what is RIGHT.I do not mind differing opinions when based on logic or rationality but emotion based politics, which is usually what the left thrives on, well they are illegitimate and I vehemently oppose them.Nothing extreme there.However, I do not mind being called an extremist(even though it is false) because Goldwater said it best "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice"

Obamacare is tyranny but aside from that aspect, it is just bad policy that makes no sense.Who here read the law? I bet just a few if any.Well, I read the law back when it was passed as I have said many times.They claim to lower costs yet it has new taxes, one that sticks out is a tax on new medical equipment.Hmmm, who do you think that cost will get passed on to? The now mandated insurance customer.The original 1 trillion price tag is now estimated 2 trillion.What does that mean kiddies? More debt.

The main concern here is the legal precedent set by the ruling, it gives the federal government license to do what they want and if citizens refuse, to punish them via a tax, to hell with individual liberties or the fact that this reasoning is total fabrication.I love that Robert's was actually, albeit briefl intellectually honest and admitted it was not constitutional under the commerce clause(so a giant :haha: all those I argued with forever about it being unconstitutional)

Like I said, we are at the point where politics are not politics anymore, if you support the government having that much power, you are complicit in in tyranny, ignorance is bliss I suppose.

I will close with this ecard.....


http://i407.photobucket.com/albums/pp152/jstringr1685/nofounderever.jpg

[Tribesman]

I read the law back when it was passed as I have said many times.
Yeah but all your teachers of law don't know nothing and ain't never done nothing so your understanding of the law must be nothing as you are educated in law by people that don't know nothing about law.

Hoisted by your own petard young man:haha:

[Sailor Steve]

How am I extreme?
You're not extreme. Neither is Yubba. You are both, however, incapable of examining all the facts or discussing the issues reasonably. This makes you dangerous, not because you are right, but because there is no room for even the possibility of error. You both see only what you want to see, and never learn or grow. Believe it or not, you are the antithesis of what the founders imagined for the country. Again, this is not because of your beliefs, but because of the lockstep way in which you express them.

I still keep hoping that someday you might learn.

[Ducimus]

"Tune into Obama's State of the Union and see what socialist America-haters he is channeling! This Kenyan Socialist is out to put the free market on trial, clearly." ( Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6jeNp9IagQ) )

[Bilge_Rat]

I still have trouble understanding how a health care reform which leaves the health care sector firmly in the hands of the private sector is "socialistic".

[mookiemookie]

I still have trouble understanding how a health care reform which leaves the health care sector firmly in the hands of the private sector is "socialistic".

Because the marketing consultants on the right have found that "socialism" is a buzzword that resonates with people. Therefore it's shoehorned into any policy debate so that people don't have to think or analyze for themselves, and instead just act on emotion and the negative connotations the word brings.

[AVGWarhawk]

I still have trouble understanding how a health care reform which leaves the health care sector firmly in the hands of the private sector is "socialistic".

The health care is left in the private sector? If this is the case why is the Fed imposing a penalty...ah...tax?


Mookie:
Because the marketing consultants on the right have found that "socialism" is a buzzword that resonates with people. Therefore it's shoehorned into any policy debate so that people don't have to think or analyze for themselves, and instead just act on emotion and the negative connotations the word brings.

People act on their wallet. The emotion comes into play when they are relieved of what's in the wallet for something they feel they should not pay for. As for the negative connotations the word brings, enlighten us to what positive connotation the word brings. :hmmm:

[Tribesman]

Tune into Obama's State of the Union and see what socialist America-haters he is channeling! This Kenyan Socialist is out to put the free market on trial, clearly."
Sneaky:up:

[mookiemookie]

As for the negative connotations the word brings, enlighten us to what positive connotation the word brings. :hmmm:

Uh...what? I think you've missed the point somewhere.

[Ducimus]

As for the negative connotations the word brings, enlighten us to what positive connotation the word brings. :hmmm:

On the word socalism? Personally i'm tired of all the emotionally charged rhetoric. Said rhetoric is what push's me away from the right and more toward center in my own views. The more emotionally charged rhetoric that is spewed instead of a logical argument with supporting evidence and a proposed solution that is also logical, the further away from the right I feel.

That said, back to the word, "socialism". Growing up in the latter end of the cold war, the word socialism to me conjures imagery like this:
http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/8527/ussrmap.pnghttp://www.whyguides.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/soviet-union1.jpg
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/ussr-1.jpg

The word "socialism" in my mind, harkens back to that cold war era. The days of Strategic Air Command, Ronald Regan, communism vs capitalsim. In my mind, to say something is "socalist" is to say, its Communist, and to say something is communist, harkens back to this cold war era when American might was at its peak. In this context, to say something is socalist, is to say it's antithesis of what it means to be American.

The word Socalist, to me, is EXTREMELY charged, and I don't think there is a more loaded word in the rhetorical lexicon. The insinuation it brings is exaggerated and preposterious. The use of the word by any news source or commentary, in my mind, makes it automatically lose all credibitly when they have to rely on such a charged word to convey a message or point, because the insinuation I believe they are making. To me, this word is used as a substitute for a valid argument with supporting evidence and rational thought because one cannot be presented.

I seriously wish the GOP and other right wing supporters would cease to use this word. It's clownish at best.

My 2 cents from the peanut gallery.

[AVGWarhawk]

Uh...what? I think you've missed the point somewhere.

I don't believe I have. You stated the word socialism conjures up a bad image, emotions and negativity. My question, what good imagery, emotions and postivity is conjured up when the word socialism is introduced?

[AVGWarhawk]

On the word socalism? Personally i'm tired of all the emotionally charged rhetoric. Said rhetoric is what push's me away from the right and more toward center in my own views. The more emotionally charged rhetoric that is spewed instead of a logical argument with supporting evidence and a proposed solution that is also logical, the further away from the right I feel.

That said, back to the word, "socialism". Growing up in the latter end of the cold war, the word socialism to me conjures imagery like this:
http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/8527/ussrmap.pnghttp://www.whyguides.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/soviet-union1.jpg
http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/ussr-1.jpg

The word "socialism" in my mind, harkens back to that cold war era. The days of Strategic Air Command, Ronald Regan, communism vs capitalsim. In my mind, to say something is "socalist" is to say, its Communist, and to say something is communist, harkens back to this cold war era when American might was at its peak. In this context, to say something is socalist, is to say it's antithesis of what it means to be American.

The word Socalist, to me, is EXTREMELY charged, and I don't think there is a more loaded word in the rhetorical lexicon. The insinuation it brings is exaggerated and preposterious. The use of the word by any news source or commentary, in my mind, makes it automatically lose all credibitly when they have to rely on such a charged word to convey a message or point, because the insinuation I believe they are making. To me, this word is used as a substitute for a valid argument with supporting evidence and rational thought because one cannot be presented.

I seriously wish the GOP and other right wing supporters would cease to use this word. It's clownish at best.

My 2 cents from the peanut gallery.


This is your answer to that question concerning what socialism conjures up. I'm inclined to believe quite a few others see the same imagery when socialism is discussed.

[Ducimus]

This is your answer to that question concerning what socialism conjures up.

Yes, that's why i used words like "to me" and "in my mind".

I'm inclined to believe quite a few others see the same imagery when socialism is discussed.

I'm sure many do. Though I do realize the word has other legitimate and modern uses in context to Europe. However, the way it's tossed around by some politicians, talking heads and media? The connotation i infer upon it's use seems appropriate and inescapable.

[mookiemookie]

On the word socalism? <snip>

My 2 cents from the peanut gallery.

Absolutely. These are the images that the GOP is trying to bring up with the "socialism" meme. And it illustrates perfectly how out of touch they are with younger voters. For an 18 year old who is voting for the first time, there was never a USSR in their lifetime. It's an abstract idea out of a history book. They never went through a duck and cover bomb drill in school. They probably couldn't identify Khrushchev or Joe McCarthy if shown a picture of them. Rocky 4 and Red Dawn were corny 80's movies. The Red Scare doesn't scare them.

But yet this is the imagery that the GOP is hanging their hat on.

[August]

Absolutely. These are the images that the GOP is trying to bring up with the "socialism" meme. And it illustrates perfectly how out of touch they are with younger voters. For an 18 year old who is voting for the first time, there was never a USSR in their lifetime. It's an abstract idea out of a history book. They never went through a duck and cover bomb drill in school. They probably couldn't identify Khrushchev or Joe McCarthy if shown a picture of them. Rocky 4 and Red Dawn were corny 80's movies. The Red Scare doesn't scare them.

But yet this is the imagery that the GOP is hanging their hat on.

Who votes more often? 18 year olds or folks who were around during the cold war?

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, that's why i used words like "to me" and "in my mind".



I'm sure many do. Though I do realize the word has other legitimate and modern uses in context to Europe. However, the way it's tossed around by some politicians, talking heads and media? The connotation i infer upon it's use seems appropriate and inescapable.

And you are dead on!

[Ducimus]

. Rocky 4 and Red Dawn were corny 80's movies.

Hey now, Red Dawn was a freaking awesome movie! Stop dissing my childhood memories! :haha:

[AVGWarhawk]

Absolutely. These are the images that the GOP is trying to bring up with the "socialism" meme. And it illustrates perfectly how out of touch they are with younger voters. For an 18 year old who is voting for the first time, there was never a USSR in their lifetime. It's an abstract idea out of a history book. They never went through a duck and cover bomb drill in school. They probably couldn't identify Khrushchev or Joe McCarthy if shown a picture of them. Rocky 4 and Red Dawn were corny 80's movies. The Red Scare doesn't scare them.

But yet this is the imagery that the GOP is hanging their hat on.

And it is the older that do remember these things that are voting. The younger not so much. However, it does not belay the fact these things did happen or continue to happen. Today these are in a book.

How much touch do you want with the younger voter? The college tuition was passed though congress. What else should be the pulse of the younger generation who will be paying for all this ultimately?

[krashkart]

Hey now, Red Dawn was a freaking awesome movie! Stop dissing my childhood memories! :haha:

Yeah! :salute:

Red Dawn is the best documentary that has ever been made. Accept no substitute. :D

[Ducimus]

Not meaning to get off the fence, but Mookie does have a point in that the voter demographic already is, or will be changing in the future. The baby boomers aren't going to be around forever, and the thing is, there's a crapton of anchor babies that are poised to contest the title of "majority" in many places when of voting age; and which way do you think they're going to vote?

[AVGWarhawk]

Not meaning to get off the fence, but Mookie does have a point in that the voter demographic already is, or will be changing in the future. The baby boomers aren't going to be around forever, and the thing is, there's a crapton of anchor babies that are poised to contest the title of "majority" in many places when of voting age; and which way do you think they're going to vote?


This is true and this younger generation will be flipping the bill. Do you allow them to go in blind as to the history of socialism? I asked for something positive when the work socialism is discussed. I can not think of any.

[Ducimus]

Do you allow them to go in blind as to the history of socialism?

Considering we have idiots like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaqaImebd1M), who do not even know basic US History, i think your expectations are entirely too high.

[August]

I asked for something positive when the work socialism is discussed. I can not think of any.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer AVG I seriously doubt you'd get a serious response from the forums Progressives.

[Ducimus]

As if it matters who's in office. :rotfl2:

[Bilge_Rat]

This is true and this younger generation will be flipping the bill. Do you allow them to go in blind as to the history of socialism? I asked for something positive when the work socialism is discussed. I can not think of any.

You are either getting sidetracked or do not understand the point we are trying to make, which is that the Health Care reform is not even remotely close to being "Socialism", except in the warped minds of right-wing nut jobs.

The Health Care Law is basically the same plan the GOP themselves proposed in 1993:


http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/graphics/2010/022310-bill-comparison.aspx

Are you saying Republicans are closet "Socialists"? :hmmm:

Damn Reds, they're everywhere!!! :o

[August]

You are either getting sidetracked or do not understand the point we are trying to make, which is that the Health Care reform is not even remotely close to being "Socialism", except in the warped minds of right-wing nut jobs.

The Health Care Law is basically the same plan the GOP themselves proposed in 1993:


http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/graphics/2010/022310-bill-comparison.aspx

Are you saying Republicans are closet "Socialists"? :hmmm:

Damn Reds, they're everywhere!!! :o

John Chafee was about at RINO as they come. I know, he was my senator for awhile.

Not really fair to compare a failed bill (which only just 2 Democrats supported BTW) with the monstrosity that eventually became law but since you did then why did the Democrats oppose it so strongly?

Are you saying that they are really "closet Republicans"? :hmmm: :)

[Bilge_Rat]

Are you saying that they are really "closet Republicans"? :hmmm: :)


well Obama does like to quote Reagan regularly...:hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

You are either getting sidetracked or do not understand the point we are trying to make, which is that the Health Care reform is not even remotely close to being "Socialism", except in the warped minds of right-wing nut jobs.



There is no side track. I understand your point. The new healthcare is not remotely close to socialism. For today anyway. It was not remotely close to tax a few months ago either. It was a penalty that became a tax. The picture is a bit larger though. The amount of new government employees required to run this juggernaut will be astronomical. Who is paying for the new government employees? Those getting the "tax"? This mandate is a rudderless ship on a voyage to the edge of the world. In 18 months this system needs to be up and running. See you on the other side. Bring your checkbook. :up:

[Bubblehead1980]

You're not extreme. Neither is Yubba. You are both, however, incapable of examining all the facts or discussing the issues reasonably. This makes you dangerous, not because you are right, but because there is no room for even the possibility of error. You both see only what you want to see, and never learn or grow. Believe it or not, you are the antithesis of what the founders imagined for the country. Again, this is not because of your beliefs, but because of the lockstep way in which you express them.

I still keep hoping that someday you might learn.

I have never said that there is no possibility I am wrong.There are things I know are true because history has proven them true and I have seen it repeatedly in my life time.

I know it is absolutely wrong for the federal government to compel a citizen to purchase a service or product, it is the antithesis or what the founders wanted, it's a big centralized authority running over the individual's financial liberty, telling them they must allocate this much or be fined/taxed.I was proven right by the decision that it was unconstitutional under the commerce clause(which was obvious) and am astounded with his intellectual dishonesty on the tax issue, especially since it has come out he changed his mind while writing the opinion, after the justices had a vote.I read his decision, 3 times now, just amazes me he would throw the government that much of a bone, but he had other motivating factors outside of the law.Sadly, he did not consider the ramifications of the precedent set by the decision.


As far as socialism is concerned, people think the classic definition of socialism.Obama is a true believer, a marxist, there really is no denying that, his past etc clearly indicates this.However, he wants to maintain power so he will do what he temporarily sees as sacrificing certain goals to achieve them in the long run.Obama now doubt wanted a big single payer, they couldn't get it, so he said okay, let's take the NEOCON(not actual conservatives) idea of mandating privately insurance, but have government controls on it, esp taxes which will make the government money but have people sour on the rising costs.The eventual, long term goal of practically eliminating private insurance will eventually be achieved when the time is right to push for a big single payer for the USA.

Aside from the bad policy the law is, the big concern is the precedent it set, the power the ruling gives the feds.The Republic died in June 29, 2012, just too sad/.:/\\!!

[mookiemookie]

Hey now, Red Dawn was a freaking awesome movie! Stop dissing my childhood memories! :haha:

And Rocky 4 was the best of them all! :up:


This is true and this younger generation will be flipping the bill. Do you allow them to go in blind as to the history of socialism? I asked for something positive when the work socialism is discussed. I can not think of any. It's irrelevant. The point is not whether socialism is good, bad, indifferent or other. The point is that the word "socialism" comes loaded with all of that imagery that Ducimus posted. Those images in and of themselves are a powerful motivator for people raised during the Cold War where the Russians were the bad guys.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer AVG I seriously doubt you'd get a serious response from the forums Progressives. Stir that pot!

[AVGWarhawk]

Mookie:
And Rocky 4 was the best of them all!

Should have stopped at Rocky 1.

Mookie:
It's irrelevant.
Interesting. So allowing the younger generation to go in blindly is irrelevant? Can I see any good images of socialism?


Mookie:
Stir that pot!

It is your recipe. We need to see the ingredients. :O: Anything of special interest we can say is great about socialism?

[August]

It is your recipe. We need to see the ingredients. :O: Anything of special interest we can say is great about socialism?

Since our forum Dems can't come up with anything good about socialism how about we look at 4 ways that Obamacare really is a tax.

1. Medical Device Manufacturing tax: A brand spanking new 2.5% tax on every prosthesis, pacemaker, stent, operating table, hemostat, MRI machine and anything else manufactured in the US that would be considered a medical device. The stuff is expensive already and since most health care insurers limit the amount they'll pay for these devices you can guess who is going to have to pick up the extra cost.

2. Medical deductions. Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one’s adjusted gross income. Under Obamacare that is going to be raised to 10%. Yay!

3. Flexible Spending account cap. Now those with high medical bills will be limited in how much they can have removed from their checks before taxes. $2500 per year. Not very much given today's prices.

4. Surtax on Capital Gains. From 15% across the board to 20%. This will of course hurt seniors who live on this income the most but everyone who has investments will get hit.

So Obamacare no matter how you slice it has plenty of real taxes in it along with the stupid non compliance penalty everyone is so up in arms about. Conveniently for the Campaigner in Chief though most of these won't take effect until after the November election. Almost like it was planned. :shifty:

[mookiemookie]

Interesting. So allowing the younger generation to go in blindly is irrelevant? Can I see any good images of socialism? You're taking things on a tangent. I'm not going to be baited into some ludicrous off topic debate on the merits of socialism. Here it is again. Read carefully:

The GOP likes to use those classic images of socialism to stir up feelings in voters. It is used as motivation to vote GOP.

How you get to "oh, I say socialism is good!" out of that is beyond me. Your question is completely irrelevant to what I said and you're doing nothing but playing games. I won't play your game.


It is your recipe. We need to see the ingredients. :O: Anything of special interest we can say is great about socialism? Start a thread on it and wait for someone to defend it if that's what you want so bad.


Since our forum Dems can't come up with anything good about socialism

"Waaaaaaahhhh, they won't take the red herring bait! Boo hoo!" :Kaleun_Crying:

[Sailor Steve]

I have never said that there is no possibility I am wrong.There are things I know are true because history has proven them true and I have seen it repeatedly in my life time.
And there's your problem right there. I've told you before, as long as you "know" something you leave yourself no room to learn anything. As I've also said before, you don't seem to notice that you never discuss anything on these forums; you only preach your "truth". You call Obama a "true believer", but that phrase also describes you. You don't just adhere to a Conservative line, you march in lockstep with the hard right. You make real Conservatives look bad.

The Republic died in June 29, 2012, just too sad/.:/\\!!
It's this type of statement that keeps you on the fringes, and everyone else not taking you seriously. You're stuck in a rut of your own making and don't even see it.

[August]

"Waaaaaaahhhh, they won't take the red herring bait! Boo hoo!"

I guess that's understandable given the inherent weakness of the pro-socialism side of the argument. That's why I gave you the out of discussing the disparity between what your side is claiming aren't really taxes but "penalties". Too bad you choose to ignore that too.

You know just because the Republicans can't handle a political weapon without shooting themselves in the foot with it (they are the stupid party after all) that doesn't mean that Obamacare really isn't going to be a huge and expensive boondoggle that should be severely modified if not outright repealed.

[AVGWarhawk]

You're taking things on a tangent. I'm not going to be baited into some ludicrous off topic debate on the merits of socialism. Here it is again. Read carefully:

The GOP likes to use those classic images of socialism to stir up feelings in voters. It is used as motivation to vote GOP.

How you get to "oh, I say socialism is good!" out of that is beyond me. Your question is completely irrelevant to what I said and you're doing nothing but playing games. I won't play your game.

Start a thread on it and wait for someone to defend it if that's what you want so bad.





"Waaaaaaahhhh, they won't take the red herring bait! Boo hoo!" :Kaleun_Crying:

There is no bait or tangent. There is only silence to the question and bold sentences. And did I anywhere say that you believe socialism is good? No sir. I asked a general question. What good imagery or otherwise is there for socialism? Instead I get red fish, bait and ludicrous topic. How so when it is stated in this thread that the Repubs are using socialism as a tool to provide bad imagery for this healthcare? The Dems do not use a similar tactic when needed?

So what, the Repubs are throwing out bad imagery of socialism and calling this healthcare socialism. Ok, it is entirely different. Similar to a penalty and a tax.

I do not need to start a thread and have someone defend anything. I ask a general question concerning socialism.

[Ducimus]

It's this type of statement that keeps you on the fringes, and everyone else not taking you seriously.

Yep. That's the kind of emotionally charged rhetoric that i think the folks on the right need to deep six into the Mariana trench. For one, it's irrational. For two, its an emotionally charged statement that lacks factual evidence since the country is still operating just fine. For three, its a statement that goes from 0 to 100 in 1.5 seconds with nothing in between. That, in a literary sense, is tantamount to doing this:
(If i wasn't hot linking this picture, id flip it the other direction)
http://www.strangemilitary.com/images/content/110636.jpg

and that, is poster child of extreme.

Choice of words matter when conveying a message you want to be heard.

[Bubblehead1980]

And there's your problem right there. I've told you before, as long as you "know" something you leave yourself no room to learn anything. As I've also said before, you don't seem to notice that you never discuss anything on these forums; you only preach your "truth". You call Obama a "true believer", but that phrase also describes you. You don't just adhere to a Conservative line, you march in lockstep with the hard right. You make real Conservatives look bad.


It's this type of statement that keeps you on the fringes, and everyone else not taking you seriously. You're stuck in a rut of your own making and don't even see it.


To deny the Republic died on June 29, is being blind.Do you understand legal precedent? The government now has the power to tax you in order to compel your behavior.Now, they can order you to buy healthcare or be fined, oh i mean taxed.Basically, government now dictates to citizens part of their budget, this is not the US I was born in and should have to live in.Where does it end? Whats next? There just is not a demand for electric cars but the all knowing government says we need to get more people in electric cars, even if there isnt one out there of enough quality to create a a demand, so hey everyone has to purchase an eletric car withing 5 years of this law or be "taxed". There is not the role of the government, but with this precedent, this could happen, give them an inch, they will take a mile.Absolutely the Republic is dead, had been ill for a long time, this was the deathblow.Denial of that, is just being ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

[Takeda Shingen]

To deny the Republic died on June 29, is being blind.Do you understand legal precedent? The government now has the power to tax you in order to compel your behavior.Now, they can order you to buy healthcare or be fined, oh i mean taxed.Basically, government now dictates to citizens part of their budget, this is not the US I was born in and should have to live in.Where does it end? Whats next? There just is not a demand for electric cars but the all knowing government says we need to get more people in electric cars, even if there isnt one out there of enough quality to create a a demand, so hey everyone has to purchase an eletric car withing 5 years of this law or be "taxed". There is not the role of the government, but with this precedent, this could happen, give them an inch, they will take a mile.Absolutely the Republic is dead, had been ill for a long time, this was the deathblow.Denial of that, is just being ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

So where are you moving to?

[Sailor Steve]

To deny the Republic died on June 29, is being blind.
Religious, political; fanatics are all the same. You just keep on preaching and not talking. You don't seem to realize how little credibility you have left.

Denial of that, is just being ignorant or intellectually dishonest.
I'll say it for the hundredth time, and hope for the hundredth time you actually start to learn. It's not what you say, it's how you say it. I agree with you on many points, but I stay away from you because fanatics like you and Yubba manage to make Conservatives look bad. Worse, you manage to make them look stupid. If anything can convince people to support Liberal causes, it's "Conservatives" like you.

Think about learning how to talk intelligently. You can't bring people around to your way of thinking by hitting them over the head with a hammer.

[mookiemookie]

or intellectually dishonest.

You using this term is the purest form of irony I can imagine.

http://homework.never-ends.net/wp-content/uploads/inconceivable.jpg

[Ducimus]

http://www.learnamericanenglishonline.com/images/boy%20at%20movies%20eat%20popcorn.jpg

[Blood_splat]

http://images29.fotki.com/v1034/photos/9/127099/8284897/new_gif_selection_08-vi.gif

[mookiemookie]

http://i.imgur.com/365tf.gif

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm on vacation stimulating the economy. What patriotic activity have you participated in today?

[Ducimus]

I'm on vacation stimulating the economy. What patriotic activity have you participated in today?


I'll be buying around 250 rounds of 9MM and 50 rounds of low base 12 gauge to teach my brother in law's son how to shoot today at local indoor firing range.

The kids already got god. I'll be introducing guns. What more could you want? :har:

[Tchocky]

I'm on vacation stimulating the economy. What patriotic activity have you participated in today?

Controlled a bunch of USAF cargo flights into and out of Ramstein, including a medevac heading Stateside. All in a days work :salute: :salute:

[mookiemookie]

Going to Costco. That's at least $200 worth of economic stimulus.