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.
Fox & Friends repeatedly misinformed about a provision in the health care reform law that fixes Medicare Part D's coverage gap, known as the "doughnut hole." Purporting to explain the "doughnut hole," Fox & Friends used the example of a fictional patient whose annual prescription costs did not reach the level of the coverage gap and later hosted Laura Ingraham, who falsely suggested the health care reform law did not fix this coverage gap.
So to pay for seniors doughnut hole it's only fair that we all be forced to buy Obaminationcare? Regardless of the actual BILLIONS they just admitted it will cost? The benefit of the few outweighs the benefits of the many... or is that on the backs of the many?
You give little credit to people for having the ability to think for themselves. You must believe that liberals have cornered the market on thought. We don't need FOX to tell us that if something stinks it's probably $h^t. But you go right on ahead with that bobblehead logic. I'm surprised you people haven't pulled out the race card yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevebri
I really wish republicans everywhere would just admit that their opposition has nothing to do with they they say and everything to do with
1. Insurance industry is afraid of falling profits and not able to jack up prices wherever they see fit so they buy republicans to go against healthcare.
2. Racism; Republicans and /or conservatives in general can't stand the idea of someone who who does not look like them to get government supported healthcare.
Hell, I remember when Obama was scoffing at Hillary's silly notion of forcing people to buy HI!
Hell, I remember when Palin supported government responsibility for personal health.
Quote:
"Protecting good health is largely a matter of personal responsibility, but government policy can help. Our new Alaska Health Care Commission will recommend changes that affect the well-being of Alaskans far into the future."
So to pay for seniors doughnut hole it's only fair that we all be forced to buy Obaminationcare? Regardless of the actual BILLIONS they just admitted it will cost? The benefit of the few outweighs the benefits of the many... or is that on the backs of the many?
You give little credit to people for having the ability to think for themselves. You must believe that liberals have cornered the market on thought. We don't need FOX to tell us that if something stinks it's probably $h^t. Buit you go right on with your bobblehead logic. I'm surprised you people haven't pulled out the race card yet.
You took the bait (hook, line, and sinker!) from Fox!
The people are liking it the more they see it. Some Politicians, particularly those in some Courts, do not like that people are warming to it. They are just trying to "straighten" those people out.
See, this is where you are completely wrong...the courts should have NOTHING to due with "straighten" people out...
You are a true liberal....and bring nothing but sarcasm and useless posts....
"It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting --- as was done in the Act --- that compelling the actual transaction is itself 'commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce' [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted. It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be 'difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power' [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only. Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended."
Emphasis mine - those bold parts are what I've been saying all along. If they can compel you to buy insurance because "it's good for the country as a whole," then what's to stop them from compelling you to buy a brand new GM car or some other product?
Single payer would have been more acceptable than the disaster they rammed down our throat. And if you know where I stand on single payer, you'll understand just how strong that statement is.
Awesome! Now we can get screwed over by big insurance even more! Yee-haw!
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.
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.
