U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-13-2010, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 38,611,481 times
Reputation: 7106

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Oh remember the right wing CD "legal experts" were telling us that if one part of the health bill is ruled unconstitutional the whole bill would be thrown out????...LOL

How many B.S paragraphs did that involve?

Nothing phases these guys...they just post their ignorant trash, it turns out to be wrong, five minutes later they are on to something else.
The whole law unravels if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, even obama and his minions admit that. This was a huge defeat for this onerous law and I can think of nothing better than having a bill, pushed by obama and the dems, against the will of the people, be deemed unconstitutional.

Obamacare is already so unpopular, the repeal effort will get a huge boost from this ruling.

I have yet to hear from the Left how much it bothers them to now know for sure obama and the dems LIED when trying to get obamacare through by claiming the "penalty" was not a tax, but now in arguments defending the law in court, they are saying it IS a tax.

Doesn't this bother any of you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-13-2010, 10:11 PM
 
13,180 posts, read 12,739,207 times
Reputation: 4531
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
The whole law unravels if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, even obama and his minions admit that. This was a huge defeat for this onerous law and I can think of nothing better than having a bill, pushed by obama and the dems, against the will of the people, be deemed unconstitutional.

Obamacare is already so unpopular, the repeal effort will get a huge boost from this ruling.

I have yet to hear from the Left how much it bothers them to now know for sure obama and the dems LIED when trying to get obamacare through by claiming the "penalty" was not a tax, but now in arguments defending the law in court, they are saying it IS a tax.

Doesn't this bother any of you?
I rest my case...... See this above post ^.

Do you think this poor soul that wrote it has any clue the Judge in his ruling addressed this point and rejected it????

Nope. .............Now give her five minutes and we'll get some more legal wisdom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2010, 10:16 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,840,354 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Oh remember the right wing CD "legal experts" were telling us that if one part of the health bill is ruled unconstitutional the whole bill would be thrown out????...LOL

How many B.S paragraphs did that involve?

Nothing phases these guys...they just post their ignorant trash, it turns out to be wrong, five minutes later they are on to something else.
Yeah, silly me, taking numerous attorney generals, including PA, Virginia, and others, judges, Congressmen, including Demcrats and Republicans, and the Obama administration, all saying that the mandate is needed if the bill is to have any teath.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...acare_con.html
as Processor Kopel argues, the individual mandate is at the very heart of the legislation. It all must be struck if the individual mandate is. To paraphrase his argument, ObamaCare would turn our private insurance companies into ultra-regulated public utilities (and probably bankrupt ones at that). But the scheme is utterly senseless in the absence of the individual mandate, and that mandate is not severable from the rest of the act.

If the constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act's individual responsibility requirement ultimately prevails, it would mean that provisions preventing health insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions would also be invalidated by the court because the two are inseparably linked. If insurance companies are required to cover those with pre-existing conditions, who are potentially more expensive to cover, without requiring everyone-both sick and healthy people-to have insurance, premiums will increase rapidly. Similarly, other provisions - including banning insurers from discriminating based on health status, age and gender - would also fall.

I know.. all of these people are wrong, its only you thats correct
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2010, 10:19 PM
 
7,345 posts, read 9,027,994 times
Reputation: 8420
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
I'm waiting for you to tell me how people who need government to give them healthcare is the responsible thing.. Still waiting.. Unable to answer ha?

Fantastic.. You have all of that, and still dont understand compounded interest and the time value of money.. I'll ask again.. Do you have a clue how insurance companies are profitable? Tell me its from insurance premiums so I can laugh at you..

Not my problem.. I never moaned and groaned about it.. You are.. Why you are complaining about my ability to pay my own bills I'll never understand ... I do look forward to paying my medical bills with my investments. Its those investments allowing it to take place. I could choose to buy an investment which I can pass down to my estate, or I can choose to pay insurance and give others the profits. I simply choose to invest in the same manner insurance companies do. Whats your beef with that?

I broke both wrists last year and needed full hand reconstructive surgery. Paid in full without a problem. My fiance has chrohns disease and spends a week every month in the hospital. Again, paid in full. Spare me the moaning and groaning because you dont understand how for some people its more beneficial to invest and use the investments to pay the bills, than it is to pay for insurance..

I dont criticize you for having insurance, even though I'm sure there is a cap to it like all insurance companies, dont criticize me for not having insurance provided I can pay the bills up until the catastrophic insurance would kick in..
Reconstructive hand surgery is small potatoes compared to the bills you could be facing; if you insist on paying all your medical bills in cash, don't be surprised when your well runs dry, because it will..

The sad thing is that all of this could be avoided by purchasing a policy that would be much cheaper, but you choose not to, and you criticize those who wish to get such coverage....such a waste...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2010, 10:20 PM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 38,611,481 times
Reputation: 7106
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
I rest my case...... See this above post ^.

Do you think this poor soul has any clue the Judge in his ruling addressed this point and rejected it????


Nope. Now give her five minutes and we'll get some more legal wisdom.
You didn't read the ruling, did you? Let me link to it for you so you can learn a few things. P.36. Maybe, just maybe, you'll actually read the most excellent ruling. He specifically REJECTED the administration's argument that it is NOW a tax. Where in the world are you getting the regurgitated spin from?

http://plf.typepad.com/VAObamacaredecision.pdf

This is the part of his reasoning. Since obama and the dems had publicly, vociferously proclaimed the "penalty" was NOT a "tax", the judge found it to be just what they said it was, a "penalty", which leaves it unconnected to any enumerated power of taxation.

Oh, about the judge not issuing an injunction - Looks like he reads it right - a de facto severability - without the mandate forcing people to buy HC, the whole thing falls apart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2010, 10:21 PM
 
13,180 posts, read 12,739,207 times
Reputation: 4531
Oh silly liberals you thought that the court decides is what is legal and what is not???

Nope, the test is if 15 right wing, redneck, tea party, State Attorney Generals decide to sue!

That means something.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2010, 10:24 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,840,354 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassVt View Post
Reconstructive hand surgery is small potatoes compared to the bills you could be facing; if you insist on paying all your medical bills in cash, don't be surprised when your well runs dry, because it will..
Actually the math looks like it takes about 10 years of paying into insurance before I come out ahead before the catastrophic insurance kicks in.

If I die within 10 years, insurance would have been cheaper.. If I die outside of 10 years, not buying health insurance is cheaper because catastrophic insurance kicks in at $250K.. The well wont run dry.. there is a cap.. Maybe you arent familiar with catastrophic insurance..
Quote:
Originally Posted by MassVt View Post
The sad thing is that all of this could be avoided by purchasing a policy that would be much cheaper, but you choose not to, and you criticize those who wish to get such coverage....such a waste...
The sad part is you somehow think that millions of dollars in investments (i.e. i.e. assets, not cash), that will pay down debt over 10-15 years, is a worse choice than having no insurance with a $250K cap on liabilities.

Tell me how you think $250K is much greater than $4M (just one property I bought last year) Explain the math on that one..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2010, 10:30 PM
 
13,180 posts, read 12,739,207 times
Reputation: 4531
Five Minutes later.

They still B.S about their "if one part is out it's all out" legal theory.

Scotus.blog

While nullifying the insurance mandate, the judge rejected the state of Virginia’s plea to strike down the entire new health care law. The law, the judge said, covers many other things, even extraneous to health care.

Even the hack right wing Judge had the scruples to reject that B.S............Here at CD right wingers don't let facts get in the way
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2010, 10:36 PM
 
7,345 posts, read 9,027,994 times
Reputation: 8420
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Actually the math looks like it takes about 10 years of paying into insurance before I come out ahead before the catastrophic insurance kicks in.

If I die within 10 years, insurance would have been cheaper.. If I die outside of 10 years, not buying health insurance is cheaper because catastrophic insurance kicks in at $250K.. The well wont run dry.. there is a cap.. Maybe you arent familiar with catastrophic insurance..

The sad part is you somehow think that millions of dollars in investments (i.e. i.e. assets, not cash), that will pay down debt over 10-15 years, is a worse choice than having no insurance with a $250K cap on liabilities.

Tell me how you think $250K is much greater than $4M (just one property I bought last year) Explain the math on that one..
If you want to spend up to $250K in medical bills, instead of buying a simple individual/group policy, then have at it ; once again, don't blame me if you develop money troubles, especially if your investments tank...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-13-2010, 10:39 PM
 
13,180 posts, read 12,739,207 times
Reputation: 4531
Why did the Judge reject the State's request that the entire bill be ruled unconstitutional?

Why on page 39-40 did he rule that ONLY the mandate be ruled illegal and not the entire bill?

http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/Health%20Care%20Memorandum%20Opinion.pdf (broken link)

Because he's not a smart as right wing CD legal minds!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top