PDA

View Full Version : SCOTUS Upholds Obamacare!!! Suck It Conservatives!!!



Mayhem
2012-06-28, 10:21
The Supreme Court upholds Obamacare. The individual care mandate upheld as a tax.

Mayhem
2012-06-28, 10:35
The individual health insurance mandate is constitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday, upholding the central provision of President Barack Obama's signature Affordable Care Act.

The 5-4 majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, upheld the mandate as a tax, although concluded it was not valid as an exercise of Congress' commerce clause power. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined in the majority.

...

PlasmaTwa2
2012-06-28, 10:50
Does anyone remember a time where a post about a contentious political topic didn't begin with an inflammatory statement against people who hold different political views than the OP?

(PS: Glad Breyer decided to vote for it. A Supreme Court decision in favour destroys all credibility Romney's team might have in making it a campaign issue, though no doubt he will still promise to end it.)

Mayhem
2012-06-28, 11:24
Does anyone remember a time where a post about a contentious political topic didn't begin with an inflammatory statement against people who hold different political views than the OP?


Yeah....I'm OK with it. When the Cons start giving a shit about all the people, when they base their decisions on what a policy is and not who promulgated it, when they get their church out of my government, I'll put my gun back in its holster.


A Supreme Court decision in favour destroys all credibility Romney's team might have in making it a campaign issue, though no doubt he will still promise to end it

Romney has lost. It's all over but for the crying.

P.S. You should have left Sam's post where it was. The man makes my own case for me, and he does the typing.

PlumpRump
2012-06-28, 12:21
A Supreme Court decision in favour destroys all credibility Romney's team might have in making it a campaign issue...Romney has lost.

Rasmussen (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law) polls show that public opinion has been heavily against Obamacare since the beginning, with its highest support rate at 43%, and currently an overwhelming 54%-39% in favor of repeal. I didn't realize that the Supreme Court elects the President. Weird.

And are you quoting a British news outlet opinion piece? "Favour?" I guess Europeans probably know better than Americans about the prospects of American politics.

Mayhem
2012-06-28, 12:32
And are you quoting a British news outlet opinion piece? "Favour?" I guess Europeans probably know better than Americans about the prospects of American politics.

Actually, I was quoting Plasma....y'know, the guy with the post directly above mine.

Jeebus, what has happened to you lately? Head injury, brain tumor, what? Where's that biting intellect that was worthy of respect? You've been falling on your ass, the last couple of weeks.

ban-one
2012-06-28, 12:33
I have four words for obamacare: I WILL NOT COMPLY

Kennedy said the whole thing's unconstitutional. Kennedy. What's that tell you?

Oh, and by the way. You people on the left think it's unpopular now? Just you wait until people actually start having to deal with it. This is the best thing to happen to conservatism in years. People getting to see up close and personal exactly what big government means. You're sunk in the long run. This is gonna turn out like Prohibition and be a huge wake up call to everyone as to just how dangerous progressives on the left and right are. Prepare to try to go back into hiding for another 100 years. Emphasis on the try, because we're on to you now.

Mayhem
2012-06-28, 12:49
Supreme Court Health Care Decision Preserves Biggest Expansion Of Coverage In 45 Years

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-health-care-decision_n_1634217.html


The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to uphold President Barack Obama's health care reform law will surely influence American politics in this November's presidential election and onward. But Dawn Josephson is already feeling the effects.

"I feel like I'm going to cry. I'm so relieved right now," said Josephson, 39, who lives in Jacksonville, Fla. Her 6-year-old son, Wesley, has a pre-existing medical condition that made it impossible for the family to find health insurance for him until the law passed in 2010. "It's so hard when you're a parent and you see your child needs help and you can't even purchase health insurance for them," said Josephson, after learning of the court's ruling from a reporter while getting her hair styled.

For now, people like Wesley Josephson can rest assured that they cannot be turned away for health insurance coverage.

The Supreme Court's decision allows the Obama administration to go forward with a law that will extend health coverage to as many as 30 million Americans through private health insurance and Medicaid starting in 2014. The law also prohibits health insurance company practices that were previously legal, including refusing to sell plans to children and adults with pre-existing medical conditions, setting lifetime limits on medical coverage that cut people off when their expenses get too high, and charging higher premiums to women.

"It's hard to underestimate the importance of having coverage for health care," said Glen Stream, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians and a primary care doctor who practices in Spokane, Wash. "People who are underinsured or uninsured, they live sicker and die younger," Stream said.

Under the law, people who earn 133 percent of the federal poverty level or less will qualify for Medicaid coverage. Those whose income is between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level will be eligible for tax credits to defray the cost of health insurance. Companies with at least 50 employees will have to provide health benefits to workers or pay a penalty to the government, and some smaller companies will receive tax credits for employee health insurance. And nearly every American will be required to obtain some form of health care coverage or face a penalty under the individual mandate.

"This day is as important as the day the law was passed, which is as important as the day Medicare and Medicaid came into existence in 1965. This is a historic moment for American health care," said Donald Berwick, who ran the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services until last year under Obama and helped implement big components of the law.

"Now, we can set about the job of making health care what it can be and, most importantly, I continue to feel that the biggest step our country is taking at the moment is toward health care as a human right," Berwick added.

The health care reform law could still disappear, however, because Republicans in Congress and Mitt Romney, the GOP presidential nominee, have vowed to repeal it. For the time being, however, the Obama administration is free to carry out the law.

Major work remains to be done. The Obama administration still has to implement the biggest, most complex parts of the law. Health insurance "exchange" marketplaces have to be established in many states, and the federal government will prepare to step in for states that aren't ready or refuse to set them up. The administration also has to erect a system for enrolling people eligible for expanded Medicaid benefits or tax credits in order to subsidize private health insurance. The Medicaid expansion could ultimately be smaller than Congress intended because the Supreme Court ruled that states, which manage and partly finance Medicaid, can choose not to cover more people.

The private sector will also have to adapt. In addition to the new federal regulatory structure for health insurance companies that are selling plans to individuals, families and small businesses, the law is packed with provisions designed to change the way health care is delivered and financed. The aim is to streamline the system by cutting waste, improving safety and using Medicare's clout over the market to direct payments to treatments that are most effective and efficient.

"Whether it actually will make care better for patients and reduce costs, we still don't really know," Berwick said. "This industry still has got to go through a massive change in the way it does its work so that patients are better off and costs fall at the same time, and we don't yet know if the leadership and capacity and will to do that actually lies within the system."

Straight Shooter
2012-06-28, 13:19
Suck it bitches!:thefinger

ban-one
2012-06-28, 13:23
Supreme Court Health Care Decision Preserves Biggest Expansion Of Coverage In 45 Years

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/supreme-court-health-care-decision_n_1634217.html

"Whether it [Obamacare] actually will make care better for patients and reduce costs, we still don't really know," Berwick said. "This industry still has got to go through a massive change in the way it does its work so that patients are better off and costs fall at the same time, and we don't yet know if the leadership and capacity and will to do that actually lies within the system."



With some sarcasm, How can you not know if it'll make care better and prices lower?

Just go look at the other countries with socialized medicine for your answer. (cough, worse, cough, more expensive, cough, fancy Europeans coming to our country to get away from the system they instituted and get medical care that their lower-class countrymen can't because they don't have the vast wealth or influence, although that'll end now because they'll have no where to go, cough There must be some dust in here, he says as he waves nothing away)

I WILL NOT COMPLY

Fatfishblu
2012-06-28, 13:31
Why are you so happy Obamacare was upheld by the Supreme Court? It doesn't mean better healthcare for you, or cheaper healthcare. It just means you have to pay more in taxes.

Sam Fisher
2012-06-28, 13:40
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn44/SamFisher_photos/adolphobama.jpg

lurkingdirk
2012-06-28, 13:41
While I'm pleased this was upheld, this is likely not the best way to start a dialogue on this topic...

However, let's give it a go, shall we?


Is this a boon for President Obama? Is this something that will prevent Obamacare from being a thorn in his side during the campaign? Will he now be able to say, while in debate with Candidate Romney, "This went to the highest court in the land, and was voted on by conservatives and liberals alike, and was found to be constitutional."

I think it is but a minor win for the President. It will be interesting to see what happens to the polls following this. 9 of the top 10 polls have Obama with a lead, albeit a slim lead. The tenth has him tied with Romney. Before this news, Romney was tied or behind according to virtually all polls (even Fox news' poll). If this doesn't create a spike in the sitting President's popularity, I think it will become a non-issue for the campaign.

Discuss.

Edit:

Oh come on, Sam. This is merely stupid.


http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn44/SamFisher_photos/adolphobama.jpg

Straight Shooter
2012-06-28, 13:52
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn44/SamFisher_photos/adolphobama.jpg

Yes. Whenever I think about the Nazis, the first thing I think about is healthcare:facepalm:

Justaman
2012-06-28, 13:56
Suck it bitches!:thefinger

Uncalled for and out of line IMO. Without a "conservative" (CJ John Roberts), this decision would have gone the other way and Roberts is definitely a CONSERVATIVE. Showed a lot of guts and objectivity for him to overcome what is quite likely his own personal bias against Obamacare.

lurkingdirk
2012-06-28, 14:04
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn44/SamFisher_photos/adolphobama.jpg


Uncalled for and out of line IMO. Without a "conservative" (CJ John Roberts), this decision would have gone the other way and Roberts is definitely a CONSERVATIVE. Showed a lot of guts and objectivity for him to overcome what is quite likely his own personal bias against Obamacare.

Great post.

:thumbsup:

Straight Shooter
2012-06-28, 14:04
Why are you so happy Obamacare was upheld by the Supreme Court? It doesn't mean better healthcare for you, or cheaper healthcare. It just means you have to pay more in taxes.

If you want to have good health, education, roads, and social protection, these public services have to be paid for, and that requires high taxes. It's obvious that a country needs to spend its money well, and thats true whether we're talking about the private or public sector

ban-one
2012-06-28, 14:10
Is this a boon for President Obama? Is this something that will prevent Obamacare from being a thorn in his side during the campaign? Will he now be able to say, while in debate with Candidate Romney, "This went to the highest court in the land, and was voted on by conservatives and liberals alike, and was found to be constitutional."

I think it is but a minor win for the President. It will be interesting to see what happens to the polls following this. 9 of the top 10 polls have Obama with a lead, albeit a slim lead. The tenth has him tied with Romney. Before this news, Romney was tied or behind according to virtually all polls (even Fox news' poll). If this doesn't create a spike in the sitting President's popularity, I think it will become a non-issue for the campaign.

Discuss.

If anything, it'll make it a bigger issue because now the only way out is at the ballot box. And Obama can't run saying "Vote for me, because I signed an unpopular and controversial (and unconstitutional) bill that was shoved through Congress with lies and broken promises at Christmas and that 60% of Americans want repealed before they've even had a taste of its horrors in bureaucracy and lack of care."

If it had gone the other way, he could have run with "Four white, rich men and an uncle tom just took your 'free' health care away. Vote for me so I can replace them. Or just ignore that pesky old document written by dead, rich white guys that owned slaves I'm a scholar of, and do what I want. Just like La Raza (I think it was them) were chanting for me to do during a speech I made where I commented that I wished I could just do what I wanted like a dictator, even though I told them I know I can't, as a scholar of that dusty old document that's a 'charter of negative rights,' that says what the government can't do to you, not what it must do to you, just that any power not given expressly to the federal government is reserved for the states so that people can move if they don't like something." Can't now.


I WILL NOT COMPLY

Mayhem
2012-06-28, 14:10
Why are you so happy Obamacare was upheld by the Supreme Court? It doesn't mean better healthcare for you, or cheaper healthcare. It just means you have to pay more in taxes.

Yes it does mean better healthcare. I am a contract worker with a pre-existing condition in my right foot and a pinched nerve in my shoulder that makes my job....very interesting. The foot problem alone is at least $6000 with a month of down time (or so the doctors tell me). Health insurance was fucking impossible. And where was the help from you know-it-all Conservatives? "We want to make healthcare more affordable." No you don't, you lying sacks of shit. You are tools of the pharmaceutical industry and not a single one of you has done anything to help people like me. Especially not your 8-year Messiah. But the good news is all the drug commercials us and our kids get to watch. You guys are really on the job. :thefinger:


Uncalled for and out of line IMO. Without a "conservative" (CJ John Roberts), this decision would have gone the other way and Roberts is definitely a CONSERVATIVE. Showed a lot of guts and objectivity for him to overcome what is quite likely his own personal bias against Obamacare.

No, it showed no guts whatsoever. What this means is that every once in a while, even a Conservative finds himself not being able to run from the truth. What do you want, a fucking parade?

Let's not run from another truth: If Obamacare had been Bushcare or McCainCare, you guys would be squirting yoursef silly over it and your boy Sam would be calling everyone who dared to challenge it a socialist Commu-Nazi.

lurkingdirk
2012-06-28, 14:17
If anything, it'll make it a bigger issue because now the only way out is at the ballot box. And Obama can't run saying "Vote for me, because I signed an unpopular and controversial (and unconstitutional) bill that was shoved through Congress with lies and broken promises at Christmas and that 60% of Americans want repealed before they've even had a taste of its horrors in bureaucracy and lack of care."

If it had gone the other way, he could have run with "Four white, rich men and an uncle tom just took your 'free' health care away. Vote for me so I can replace them. Or just ignore that pesky old document written by dead, rich white guys that owned slaves I'm a scholar of, and do what I want. Just like La Raza (I think it was them) were chanting for me to do during a speech I made where I commented that I wished I could just do what I wanted like a dictator, even though I told them I know I can't, as a scholar of that dusty old document that's a 'charter of negative rights,' that says what the government can't do to you, not what it must do to you, just that any power not given expressly to the federal government is reserved for the states so that people can move if they don't like something." Can't now.


I WILL NOT COMPLY

It is NOT unconstitutional. Some of the finest legal minds in the nation, the ones charged with upholding the highest challenges to the law in our nation, determined that. Didn't you read the news? Or do you think that your opinion is more legally sound than that of the supreme court?

Mayhem
2012-06-28, 14:20
If anything, it'll make it a bigger issue because now the only way out is at the ballot box. And Obama can't run saying "Vote for me, because I signed an unpopular and controversial (and unconstitutional) bill that was shoved through Congress with lies and broken promises at Christmas and that 60% of Americans want repealed before they've even had a taste of its horrors in bureaucracy and lack of care."

If it had gone the other way, he could have run with "Four white, rich men and an uncle tom just took your 'free' health care away. Vote for me so I can replace them. Or just ignore that pesky old document written by dead, rich white guys that owned slaves I'm a scholar of, and do what I want. Just like La Raza (I think it was them) were chanting for me to do during a speech I made where I commented that I wished I could just do what I wanted like a dictator, even though I told them I know I can't, as a scholar of that dusty old document that's a 'charter of negative rights,' that says what the government can't do to you, not what it must do to you, just that any power not given expressly to the federal government is reserved for the states so that people can move if they don't like something." Can't now.


I WILL NOT COMPLY


It is NOT unconstitutional. Some of the finest legal minds in the nation, the ones charged with upholding the highest challenges to the law in our nation, determined that. Didn't you read the news? Or do you think that your opinion is more legally sound than that of the supreme court?

This is what they do. And this is why I treat them with the unrestrained contempt that they deserve.

Justaman
2012-06-28, 14:27
No, it showed no guts whatsoever. What this means is that every once in a while, even a Conservative finds himself not being able to run from the truth. What do you want, a fucking parade?

No. I want a little class. Saying "Suck it, bitches" is pretty fucking classless.


Let's not run from another truth: If Obamacare had been Bushcare or McCainCare, you guys would be squirting yoursef silly over it and your boy Sam would be calling everyone who dared to challenge it a socialist Commu-Nazi.

You guys? Who the fuck are you calling "you guys"? What category are you filing me in there Mr. Mayhem??? Am I one of the bitches who should "suck it"?

You don't know me or what my beliefs are so engage your brain before you hit the keyboard in a response to me next time, OK pal???

Straight Shooter
2012-06-28, 14:28
No. I want a little class. Saying "Suck it, bitches" is pretty fucking classless.

Let's not run from another truth: If Obamacare had been Bushcare or McCainCare, you guys would be squirting yoursef silly over it and your boy Sam would be calling everyone who dared to challenge it a socialist Commu-Nazi.

Class? Nigg* please, you're on a fucking porn board. :facepalm:

Mayhem
2012-06-28, 14:35
I said "Suck it Conservatives". Go to the corner, take the dunce-cap from PlumpRump and tell him he's free to go. Typical circumstance from "you guys" though. See what you want to see rather than what's there. That is the category you just showed that you fit in, so keep whining. Uncle Newt would be proud.

BTW, your first clue as to what I actually said: It's in THE FUCKING THREAD TITLE. Try engaging your brain....OK pal???

Justaman
2012-06-28, 14:41
Class? Nigg* please, you're on a fucking porn board. :facepalm:

I guess you're a shining example then? :dunno:

Keep up the racial slurs too. Bolsters your image.

Will E Worm
2012-06-28, 14:48
Let the death panels commence!

:facepalm:


I have four words for obamacare: I WILL NOT COMPLY

Kennedy said the whole thing's unconstitutional. Kennedy. What's that tell you?

Oh, and by the way. You people on the left think it's unpopular now? Just you wait until people actually start having to deal with it. This is the best thing to happen to conservatism in years. People getting to see up close and personal exactly what big government means. You're sunk in the long run. This is gonna turn out like Prohibition and be a huge wake up call to everyone as to just how dangerous progressives on the left and right are. Prepare to try to go back into hiding for another 100 years. Emphasis on the try, because we're on to you now.

:goodpost: No one that's not a liberal better not comply. :nono:

This could be the start of civil war. :D


Why are you so happy Obamacare was upheld by the Supreme Court? It doesn't mean better healthcare for you, or cheaper healthcare. It just means you have to pay more in taxes.

Just more taxes. Worse care.


http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn44/SamFisher_photos/adolphobama.jpg

Obama is not intelligent enough to be a nazi. ;)

Justaman
2012-06-28, 14:48
Class? Nigg* please, you're on a fucking porn board. :facepalm:

I guess you're a shining example then? :dunno:

Keep up the racial slurs too. Bolsters your image.


I said "Suck it Conservatives". Go to the corner, take the dunce-cap from PlumpRump and tell him he's free to go. Typical circumstance from "you guys" though. See what you want to see rather than what's there. That is the category you just showed that you fit in, so keep whining. Uncle Newt would be proud.

BTW, your first clue as to what I actually said: It's in THE FUCKING THREAD TITLE. Try engaging your brain....OK pal???

:rofl: Wow. You really are easy prey there pal. Took the bait hook, line and sinker. You didn't even bother to read between the lines there, did you Einstein? You're going to end up making "us guys" think you're really intellectually-challenged you communist pinko liberal socialist!!!

Take your prejudiced head out of your ass and wake up.

Fatfishblu
2012-06-28, 14:54
[QUOTE=Mayhem;6818027]Yes it does mean better healthcare. I am a contract worker with a pre-existing condition in my right foot and a pinched nerve in my shoulder that makes my job....very interesting. The foot problem alone is at least $6000 with a month of down time (or so the doctors tell me). Health insurance was fucking impossible. And where was the help from you know-it-all Conservatives? "We want to make healthcare more affordable." No you don't, you lying sacks of shit. You are tools of the pharmaceutical industry and not a single one of you has done anything to help people like me. Especially not your 8-year Messiah. But the good news is all the drug commercials us and our kids get to watch. You guys are really on the job. :thefinger:

Nice classless post. You do realize all Obama had to do was open up free competition of healthcare across state borders and you would have received coverage, at a competing (lower) cost, for your pre-existing condition. It's called the free market and competition amongst companies drives prices down. It happened to car insurance so it would have inevitably occurred within health insurance. Now, this albatross of a tax will cost us upwards of over $15 Trillion dollars. AND, we still don't know what's in it ("We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it" Nancy Pelosi).

Mayhem
2012-06-28, 14:57
:rofl: Wow. You really are easy prey there pal. Took the bait hook, line and sinker. You didn't even bother to read between the lines there, did you Einstein? You're going to end up making "us guys" think you're really intellectually-challenged you communist pinko liberal socialist!!!

Take your prejudiced head out of your ass and wake up.

I was going to say "nice try", but it wasn't. Face it, just like my side won, and your side lost today; I win, you lose right now. Obamacare is still the law, Roberts provided the swing vote, you have shit comprehension skills, and you're a typical reactionary right-wing douche that is too busy being a douche to read what's on the screen in front of you. You took the "pre-judging" out of any prejudice I might have had, and you did it all on your own. There are no lines to read between. Swing and a miss.

Will E Worm
2012-06-28, 14:58
Nice classless post. You do realize all Obama had to do was open up free competition of healthcare across state borders and you would have received coverage, at a competing (lower) cost, for your pre-existing condition. It's called the free market and competition amongst companies drives prices down. It happened to car insurance so it would have inevitably occurred within health insurance. Now, this albatross of a tax will cost us upwards of over $15 Trillion dollars. AND, we still don't know what's in it ("We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it" Nancy Pelosi).

I agree, classless post by him. ;)

Competition? They hate that. They hate freedom and the middle class.

Pelosi :facepalm:

ban-one
2012-06-28, 15:01
For those of you who are afraid of going to jail for not complying with this load of crap, let us consider the situation:

Millions of patriotic Americans standing up to their over-bearing government (which some people might wanna take a look at history to see how that turns out), and there isn't the room to jail them all in conventional prisons.

Solution?

See Andrew Jackson (Indians), Woodrow Wilson (Germans and political enemies), and FDR (Japanese, Germans, and Italians).

Concentration/internment camps.

Little cities filled with like-minded rebels.

From SERE training (with my emphasis):

"I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense. I will never surrender of my own free will. If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy. If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I will evade answering questions to the utmost of my ability. I will never forget that I am an American, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America."


I WILL NOT COMPLY

Fatfishblu
2012-06-28, 15:03
[QUOTE=Will E Worm;6818157]Let the death panels commence!

:facepalm:


Death panels is so correct. X amount of dollars will be allocated for, let's say, heart surgeries. After that quota is met, no more heart surgeries until that allocation fund is replenished (say the next fiscal year). So, these "Death panels" will decide who is selected for heart surgery and who isn't. The scary part about these so called "Death panels" is that they will be made up of uneducated, high-school dropouts sitting in cubicles picking their noses and waiting for their next obligatory raise and mandated government holiday.

Mayhem
2012-06-28, 15:05
Yes it does mean better healthcare. I am a contract worker with a pre-existing condition in my right foot and a pinched nerve in my shoulder that makes my job....very interesting. The foot problem alone is at least $6000 with a month of down time (or so the doctors tell me). Health insurance was fucking impossible. And where was the help from you know-it-all Conservatives? "We want to make healthcare more affordable." No you don't, you lying sacks of shit. You are tools of the pharmaceutical industry and not a single one of you has done anything to help people like me. Especially not your 8-year Messiah. But the good news is all the drug commercials us and our kids get to watch. You guys are really on the job. :thefinger:

Nice classless post. You do realize all Obama had to do was open up free competition of healthcare across state borders and you would have received coverage, at a competing (lower) cost, for your pre-existing condition. It's called the free market and competition amongst companies drives prices down. It happened to car insurance so it would have inevitably occurred within health insurance. Now, this albatross of a tax will cost us upwards of over $15 Trillion dollars. AND, we still don't know what's in it ("We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it" Nancy Pelosi).

OK, so where was your boy, Georgy II on all of this? Where was your party? 8 years to make everything you just said happen. Got a know-it-all answer for that? I do. I went to a chiropracter in 2003, was told my insurance was hunky-dory, spent several weeks in treatment, then was told that my insurance isn't covering the visits I already had made! Where were you guys and your "we know better than the Liberals"? Tell me, where the fuck were you while I was being fucked in the ass by a POS spine bender and the insurance industry? If you want class, then give me my motherfuckin' money back. And I still want to know, where the fuck were you then?

ban-one
2012-06-28, 15:07
It is NOT unconstitutional. Some of the finest legal minds in the nation, the ones charged with upholding the highest challenges to the law in our nation, determined that. Didn't you read the news? Or do you think that your opinion is more legally sound than that of the supreme court?

Actually, I do think my opinion is more sound given the ruling. And hell, 4 of them agree with me, so it was hardly decisive. And you can pick 9 random people and get all kinds of opinions on things.

And I'd debate 'finest.' That's a matter of opinion. And mine says 'nope, not so fine.'

I WILL NOT COMPLY

Justaman
2012-06-28, 15:13
I was going to say "nice try", but it wasn't. Face it, just like my side won, and your side lost today; I win, you lose right now. Obamacare is still the law, Roberts provided the swing vote, you have shit comprehension skills, and you're a typical reactionary right-wing douche that is too busy being a douche to read what's on the screen in front of you. You took the "pre-judging" out of any prejudice I might have had, and you did it all on your own. There are no lines to read between. Swing and a miss.

Wow. I'm beginning to understand why "us guys" despise you lefties.

Rey C.
2012-06-28, 15:14
Let the death panels commence!

:facepalm:

Blue Cross/Blue Shield and all the others have had "death panels" for years. But until they get sick, most Americans don't realize that they're nothing but numbers and loss statistics to the insurance companies. I know... they killed my aunt when she had cancer and they wouldn't pay for a bone marrow transplant. Fuck them!

What this means to me is that I now don't have to worry about going fully independent, giving up my employer sponsored plan and having to beg some shit bag insurance company for a 60/40, $700 a month junk policy, just because I now have pre-existing conditions. Yeah baby! These middle fingers are for you, big insurance. :thefinger

And now, all you people who want to roll the dice and not have insurance, but you sure as hell don't mind running to the ER as soon as you get sick, run up a big bill that you can't/won't pay and then cause people like me to have to pay higher bills, now you dead beats have to have insurance too! I say, good! :thumbsup:

Will E Worm
2012-06-28, 15:20
Death panels is so correct. X amount of dollars will be allocated for, let's say, heart surgeries. After that quota is met, no more heart surgeries until that allocation fund is replenished (say the next fiscal year). So, these "Death panels" will decide who is selected for heart surgery and who isn't. The scary part about these so called "Death panels" is that they will be made up of uneducated, high-school dropouts sitting in cubicles picking their noses and waiting for their next obligatory raise and mandated government holiday.

Sounds like we need a new Boston Tea party.


Death panels have been around for sometime. Obamacare will just make it worse.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKVLV9bR1bo&feature=related

Mayhem
2012-06-28, 15:20
pdMHO-6zMTg

Straight Shooter
2012-06-28, 15:22
I agree, classless post by him. ;)

Competition? They hate that. They hate freedom and the middle class.

Pelosi :facepalm:

Did the private health insurance companies go anywhere? Obama is giving them more customers.

Fatfishblu
2012-06-28, 15:31
OK, so where was your boy, Georgy II on all of this? Where was your party? 8 years to make everything you just said happen. Got a know-it-all answer for that? I do. I went to a chiropracter in 2003, was told my insurance was hunky-dory, spent several weeks in treatment, then was told that my insurance isn't covering the visits I already had made! Where were you guys and your "we know better than the Liberals"? Tell me, where the fuck were you while I was being fucked in the ass by a POS spine bender and the insurance industry? If you want class, then give me my motherfuckin' money back. And I still want to know, where the fuck were you then?

Your post proves what a stupid FUCK you are. If you had a medical condition, you should have seen a MEDICAL DOCTOR, not some chiropractic quack! Your fault, not my party's fault. But, what the hell, blame Bush.

Mayhem
2012-06-28, 15:36
Your post proves what a stupid FUCK you are. If you had a medical condition, you should have seen a MEDICAL DOCTOR, not some chiropractic quack! Your fault, not my party's fault. But, what the hell, blame Bush.

I was referred to the chiroprator by an MD. Who is the stupid fuck now? Seriously, who is the stupid fuck now? You and every other dipshit Con on this thread. Like your buddy Justaman and his comprehension problems. And eyesight problems.

And you still haven't answered the question have you, stupid fuck.

Rey C.
2012-06-28, 15:37
You do realize all Obama had to do was open up free competition of healthcare across state borders and you would have received coverage, at a competing (lower) cost, for your pre-existing condition. It's called the free market and competition amongst companies drives prices down. It happened to car insurance so it would have inevitably occurred within health insurance. Now, this albatross of a tax will cost us upwards of over $15 Trillion dollars. AND, we still don't know what's in it ("We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it" Nancy Pelosi).

You do realize that is not how business works, don't you? The stated, fiduciary purpose of a publicly traded corporation (all publicly traded corporations) is to enhance shareholder wealth, not trip over itself trying to offer the lowest possible prices to people in higher risk categories. I've often heard people claim that with greater competition, rates would somehow magically fall. And while I agree that some rates for some people might fall, why would any company rush into a market to offer lower rates to higher risk people? Through various employers, I've had policies underwritten by companies based in Texas, Michigan, California, Rhode Island, Maryland and Virginia. But those were group policies with open enrollment. What most people, who make these hopium claims, don't understand or think of is, what laws would govern the behavior of the company based in one state and selling policies in another... if they were not licensed to do business in both states??? If the laws and regulations are different in State X than State Y, which laws would prevail? And what people also fail to understand or acknowledge: there's nothing stopping health insurance companies from doing business in other states now... as long as they seek a business license in these other states.

There are certainly parts of this law that I do not agree with. I think that the provisions that would put an undue burden on small businesses do need to be addressed. But the overall direction and concept, I most certainly do agree with. If this law had been passed sooner, my local hospital might not be on the verge of bankruptcy right now.

Fatfishblu
2012-06-28, 15:47
You do realize that is not how business works, don't you? The stated, fiduciary purpose of a publicly traded corporation (all publicly traded corporations) is to enhance shareholder wealth, not trip over itself trying to offer the lowest possible prices to people in higher risk categories. I've often heard people claim that with greater competition, rates would somehow magically fall. And while I agree that some rates for some people might fall, why would any company rush into a market to offer lower rates to higher risk people? Through various employers, I've had policies underwritten by companies based in Texas, Michigan, California, Rhode Island, Maryland and Virginia. But those were group policies with open enrollment. What most people, who make these hopium claims, don't understand or think of is, what laws would govern the behavior of the company based in one state and selling policies in another... if they were not licensed to do business in both states??? If the laws and regulations are different in State X than State Y, which laws would prevail? And what people also fail to understand or acknowledge: there's nothing stopping health insurance companies from doing business in other states now... as long as they seek a business license in these other states.

There are certainly parts of this law that I do not agree with. I think that the provisions that would put an undue burden on small businesses do need to be addressed. But the overall direction and concept, I most certainly do agree with. If this law had been passed sooner, my local hospital might not be on the verge of bankruptcy right now.

Example how opening competition amongst states would increase occupant coverage and decrease rates:

Mayhem has a pre-existing condition, thus cannot get coverage in his state, OR he CAN get coverage, but has to pay out his ass for it. Now, if competition was opened across state borders, Mayhem could receive coverage from another state AND/OR receive coverage at a lower rate. He now has 49 (56 if you're a liberal) other states to shop for insurance.

ban-one
2012-06-28, 15:51
I know he was talking about something else, but it still works for this, and to add some humor, ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, the Reverend Al 'Bull Horn' Sharpton:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs9ShJjXakU

Right on, Al. Right on. Resist we much.

I WILL NOT COMPLY

Rey C.
2012-06-28, 15:57
Example how opening competition amongst states would increase occupant coverage and decrease rates:

Mayhem has a pre-existing condition, thus cannot get coverage in his state, OR he CAN get coverage, but has to pay out his ass for it. Now, if competition was opened across state borders, Mayhem could receive coverage from another state AND/OR receive coverage at a lower rate. He now has 49 (56 if you're a liberal) other states to shop for insurance.

So why don't these companies in the other 56 states get licenses to do business in Mayhem's state now? And why is it that people from all 50 (or 57) states face the very same issues when it comes to pre-existing conditions? Why would a company not offer affordable policies for people with pre-existing conditions for states in which they currently do business, yet when they sell these policies in other states, they're going to magically offer them? Sorry, but that sounds like a kilo of hopium to me.

robot_r0ck
2012-06-28, 16:10
:popcorn:


http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn44/SamFisher_photos/adolphobama.jpg

http://ist1-2.filesor.com/pimpandhost.com/5/5/8/6/55861/1/2/u/o/12uoD/bitch.jpg

zeeblofowl_1969
2012-06-28, 16:48
http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn44/SamFisher_photos/adolphobama.jpg

WOW you haven't had a clear thought in decades have you squid.......

StanScratch
2012-06-28, 16:56
Prediction:
Romney wins. He nixes ObamaCare. He introduces his own legislation, which happens to be almost the exact same thing. It passes. The likes of Rump, Will and Sam declare it a victory for the common people.

El Diablo Blanco
2012-06-28, 17:11
Yes. Whenever I think about the Nazis, the first thing I think about is healthcare:facepalm:

Whenever I think about Obama, I think about the Nazi's.

I guess it's all in how you view the evil men do.

Mayhem
2012-06-28, 17:17
Whenever I think about Obama, I think about the Nazi's.

I guess it's all in how you view the evil men do.

Whenever I think about G.W. Bush, I think about Shemp (not Curly, Shemp). And when I think about the GOP in its entirety:

mZBdxvego1E

PlumpRump
2012-06-28, 17:22
Prediction:
Romney wins. He nixes ObamaCare. He introduces his own legislation, which happens to be almost the exact same thing. It passes. The likes of Rump, Will and Sam declare it a victory for the common people.

A loss of personal liberty for any American will never be a victory, regardless of whom is taking it away. Its scary that so many people on this board refuse to see it that way.

I'm glad that those in favor of this law are in the national minority.

PlumpRump
2012-06-28, 17:24
Whenever I think about G.W. Bush, I think about Shemp (not Curly, Shemp). And when I think about the GOP in its entirety:

mZBdxvego1E

You keep talking "W" like he's relevant... He hasn't been president since the previous decade. Get some new material.

Mayhem
2012-06-28, 17:32
You keep talking "W" like he's relevant... He hasn't been president since the previous decade. Get some new material.

He is relevant to this discussion in that he did nothing to assist people in need of affordable insurance, and did nothing for health care in this country (except to put plenty of service members in need of a doctors care). Yet the GOP, Tea Party, Conservative element (everywhere else and on this board) are all saying how wrong Obamacare is. I find this stunning. If it were up to you guys (ooops, there I go again), absolutely nothing would be happening for the healthcare crisis on the US. Nothing. You don't have a better way. You have no way, and you seem to be fine with it.

Either come up with a better plan and show us what it is.....or shut the fuck up.

Straight Shooter
2012-06-28, 17:38
I'll just let Mittens make my argument

y6DrH6P9OC0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmihmlb1LBY&feature=youtu.be

lurkingdirk
2012-06-28, 17:43
I simply find it hard to believe that anyone is stupid enough to continue to argue using the idea of death panels. Holy crap. That's just stupid.

StanScratch
2012-06-28, 18:14
A loss of personal liberty for any American will never be a victory, regardless of whom is taking it away. Its scary that so many people on this board refuse to see it that way.

I'm glad that those in favor of this law are in the national minority.



Show me the light then, big boy. Show me how exactly this will take away my freedom. And since, as you seem to think, I am quite stupid - be extremely explicit, give me links, give me charts, give me proof.

PlumpRump
2012-06-28, 18:32
He is relevant to this discussion in that he did nothing to assist people in need of affordable insurance, and did nothing for health care in this country (except to put plenty of service members in need of a doctors care). Yet the GOP, Tea Party, Conservative element (everywhere else and on this board) are all saying how wrong Obamacare is. I find this stunning. If it were up to you guys (ooops, there I go again), absolutely nothing would be happening for the healthcare crisis on the US. Nothing. You don't have a better way. You have no way, and you seem to be fine with it.

Either come up with a better plan and show us what it is.....or shut the fuck up.

A combination of increased competition, encouragement of HSA HDHP, reform of medical malpractice/liability torts, transparency in medical cost, a restructuring of medicaid for low-income assistance, and the encouragement of pooling would be a good start.

There have been several proposed alternatives that don't require a federal individual mandate, you just haven't paid attention to them, or had a rational thought about their merits because you don't care to hear any other opinion than your own. There are several, reasonable alternatives that have been floated about in the last 6 months, you just refuse to give them any attention because they are sponsored by people who think differently than you do. I could post them, but you wouldn't read them anyhow, so I won't.

I understand that this issue apparently hits close to home for you, but "debating" with such emotion, as you do, is dangerous. Getting something done simply for the sake of it is ignorant. It creates such a short-sighted attitude that you may be overlooking an option that serves your interests just as well as, or even better than the current option. I understand that you have some anger over this, and believe it or not, I can sympathize with you. Working in the healthcare industry, I see people on a daily basis that struggle with this exact issue. I firmly believe that people should have easier, and cheaper access to affordable healthcare, I just disagree with the notion that people should be made to purchase health insurance if they don't want it, as well as having to pay higher taxes to pay for someone else's care. Why should I pay higher taxes because Joe Whoever drank 2 liters of vodka a day and now requires dialysis 3 times a week? Or because Bill Whatshisname went on a bender and became paralyzed when he crashed his car into a school bus full of 6 year-olds on his way to score more crank and now needs 24 hour medical care?

Easier access, more affordable, of course. But personal responsibility should play a role, and personal responsibility, for me at least, doesn't involve chipping in to cover the healthcare costs of degenerates, or even upstanding people that I don't know, or care about.

Like I said before, I'm glad people like you are in the minority on this. Not on this board, but in the general public, more people disagree with you than agree. That's a fact.

Thunder Bird
2012-06-28, 18:44
The best thing that could have happened was single-payer universal coverage, but when the law was being written there was too much compromise. It wouldn't have mattered what was written into the bill, the republicans were going to be obstructionist pricks, regardless. Mitch McConnell- “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president”. That speaks for itself, they don't give a damn.

PlumpRump
2012-06-28, 18:51
Show me the light then, big boy. Show me how exactly this will take away my freedom. And since, as you seem to think, I am quite stupid - be extremely explicit, give me links, give me charts, give me proof.

How will taking away freedom of choice take away from freedom? This is a rhetorical, right?

Just in case it isn't:

You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drinks a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants.

You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employees’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. (Section 1302)

You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. (Section 1302)

You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Section 1302)


And on, and on, and on...

How is this not a blatant violation of liberty?


*And for the record, I don't believe I've ever called you stupid, and I don't think you are. I've generally leave the name calling to you and your board mates.

StanScratch
2012-06-28, 19:14
So drivers' insurance takes away your freedom as well? Where is the outrage over that?

PlasmaTwa2
2012-06-28, 19:19
Kennedy said the whole thing's unconstitutional. Kennedy. What's that tell you?

It tells me that the values and ideology in the US is not permanent like some people want to claim. It evolved with the needs of the country and with changes in the people who interpret the constitution. This is what the government believes the country needs and the Supreme Court (a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court, mind you) has declared it constitutional. Say you will not comply all you want, but you really have no choice in the matter and I personally don't think you have the skill or cojones to defy American law...

lurkingdirk
2012-06-28, 19:20
It tells me that the values and ideology in the US is not permanent like some people want to claim. It evolved with the needs of the country and with changes in the people who interpret the constitution. This is what the government believes the country needs and the Supreme Court (a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court, mind you) has declared it constitutional. Say you will not comply all you want, but you really have no choice in the matter and I personally don't think you have the skill or cojones to defy American law...

You simply have to stop being reasonable. You're going to get a reputation for being fair and balanced.

PlasmaTwa2
2012-06-28, 19:33
You simply have to stop being reasonable. You're going to get a reputation for being fair and balanced.

Sheesh Dirk, you didn't let me finish. I was going to say "alternatively, you could round up all non-whites in America and put them in camps making good and services for free, lowering product costs, increasing the amount of American made goods and creating enough of a surplus to give all real, God-fearing Americans healthcare at no cost to them."

Straight Shooter
2012-06-28, 19:44
How will taking away freedom of choice take away from freedom? This is a rhetorical, right?

Just in case it isn't:


And on, and on, and on...

How is this not a blatant violation of liberty?


*And for the record, I don't believe I've ever called you stupid, and I don't think you are. I've generally leave the name calling to you and your board mates.

You are young and can afford insurance but decide that you don't need it. One day you come down with a severe sickness and have to be rushed to the emergency room and the government ends up footing the bill. Here's an idea: stop being a freeloader and take some personal responsibility and pay your own goddamn way. I'm surprised it's the liberals who are making the "personal responsibility" argument and not the conservatives. What's going on here? lol

lurkingdirk
2012-06-28, 19:45
Sheesh Dirk, you didn't let me finish. I was going to say "alternatively, you could round up all non-whites in America and put them in camps making good and services for free, lowering product costs, increasing the amount of American made goods and creating enough of a surplus to give all real, God-fearing Americans healthcare at no cost to them."

Now THAT is more on par with this conversation. Well done.

El Diablo Blanco
2012-06-28, 19:55
Whenever I think about G.W. Bush, I think about Shemp (not Curly, Shemp). And when I think about the GOP in its entirety:

mZBdxvego1E

I usually think about Hitler for him too.......and his side kick, Hienrich (Cheney)

PlasmaTwa2
2012-06-28, 19:58
Now THAT is more on par with this conversation. Well done.

Fuck you, you Communist-Nazi-Mexican.

ban-one
2012-06-28, 19:59
So drivers' insurance takes away your freedom as well? Where is the outrage over that?

The main purpose of automobile insurance is to make sure that if you wreck another person's vehicle, they'll get it fixed or replaced, which is why that's the minimum coverage required by the states who have that power. It is also on the condition that you own a vehicle and take it on the public roads. Don't own a vehicle? Don't take it onto public roads? Don't need insurance. (Wow, what a concept.)

It also doesn't cover oil, tire, and filter changes or tune-ups or A/C repair, or the other things that are analogous to check-ups or if your get a cold. That's where health insurance got screwed up. Instead of paying for the catastrophic stuff that would bankrupt most people, it covers all the little things, so you don't see how expensive things get. Meaning you might just pick up some over-the-counter cold medicine for $10 instead of the $100 doctor visit and the $50 prescription that does the same thing, or atleast shop around for a better deal. So there's no incentive for the price to come down, unlike car maintenance and repair where you do pay for it all and shop around for a good price or decide you can do without A/C. (Wow, what another concept.)

The mandate to have health care insurance is on the condition that you exist, and that you had no choice in.


I WILL NOT COMPLY

lurkingdirk
2012-06-28, 19:59
Fuck you, you Communist-Nazi-Mexican.

Fine, you Socialist, effeminate, chubby, irrelevant, piss-lover. You name the time and place.

StanScratch
2012-06-28, 20:07
The main purpose of automobile insurance is to make sure that if you wreck another person's vehicle, they'll get it fixed or replaced, which is why that's the minimum coverage required by the states who have that power. It is also on the condition that you own a vehicle and take it on the public roads. Don't own a vehicle? Don't take it onto public roads? Don't need insurance. (Wow, what a concept.)

It also doesn't cover oil, tire, and filter changes or tune-ups or A/C repair, or the other things that are analogous to check-ups or if your get a cold. That's where health insurance got screwed up. Instead of paying for the catastrophic stuff that would bankrupt most people, it covers all the little things, so you don't see how expensive things get. Meaning you might just pick up some over-the-counter cold medicine for $10 instead of the $100 doctor visit and the $50 prescription that does the same thing, or atleast shop around for a better deal. So there's no incentive for the price to come down, unlike car maintenance and repair where you do pay for it all and shop around for a good price or decide you can do without A/C. (Wow, what another concept.)

The mandate to have health care insurance is on the condition that you exist, and that you had no choice in.


I WILL NOT COMPLY


So, if I have health insurance, it covers dental and eye? Cool.

PlumpRump
2012-06-28, 20:07
So drivers' insurance takes away your freedom as well? Where is the outrage over that?

Its a completely different type of mandate. Minimum requirements for auto insurance are based on liability. You must retain coverage in the event that you damage someone else's person, or their property. Completely different than what's at issue here.

StanScratch
2012-06-28, 20:11
Its a completely different type of mandate. Minimum requirements for auto insurance are based on liability. You must retain coverage in the event that you damage someone else's person, or their property. Completely different than what's at issue here.


So gun insurance should be mandatory?

PlumpRump
2012-06-28, 20:17
So gun insurance should be mandatory?

I think that's a brilliant idea, to be honest.

ban-one
2012-06-28, 20:34
It tells me that the values and ideology in the US is not permanent like some people want to claim. It evolved with the needs of the country and with changes in the people who interpret the constitution. This is what the government believes the country needs and the Supreme Court (a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court, mind you) has declared it constitutional. Say you will not comply all you want, but you really have no choice in the matter and I personally don't think you have the skill or cojones to defy American law...

Aside from telling me that even someone on the left like Kennedy can see it for what it is and that the government has no authority there, it tells me that a few people picked by a few other people decided what was right for the rest of us, instead of it being a personal decision based on what we really need. They could have just as easily decided it was a good idea for everyone to bash their heads in. Or how about everyone, no matter their age, must not only own a gun, it must be an M16 with a grenade launcher, and must keep it loaded, off safe, and on you at all times? Because after all, it's for your protection. And if you didn't, to jail. (I bet those on the left would love that) Or a anti-tank missile? Or an aircraft carrier? Or that we should all eat peanuts, even if you're allergic.

I laugh at your assertion that the court is conservative. It is progressive. If it were truly conservative, it would have been struck down.

Despite what people on the left like to claim about 'evolving interpretations of a living document to fit the times,' it is not a 'living' document that can die, it is 'eternal.' To be read as it was written, no interpretations needed, and if we wanted to change something, we could amend it. Only that has the nasty little problem of requiring 3/4 of the states to ratify it.

And on a side note about the owning a gun, they put in the Constitution that we all have a right to bear arms for protection and other things. They could have just as easily required us all to have guns for the same reason. They did not. I don't know about you, but I kinda think that if anyone knew what they meant, it was those who wrote it in the first place. It's a good idea for you to have a gun to protect yourself, but they didn't make you.


I WILL NOT COMPLY, and I'll take my chances in the internment camp with my fellow patriotic Americans. If they can keep us in that is :D

Mayhem
2012-06-28, 20:55
I think ban-one is confusing Justice Kennedy with the Kennedy family. Considering the accusations that he, PR and Justaman are making about me, I find this very amusing.

PlasmaTwa2
2012-06-28, 21:30
Aside from telling me that even someone on the left like Kennedy can see it for what it is and that the government has no authority there, it tells me that a few people picked by a few other people decided what was right for the rest of us, instead of it being a personal decision based on what we really need. They could have just as easily decided it was a good idea for everyone to bash their heads in. Or how about everyone, no matter their age, must not only own a gun, it must be an M16 with a grenade launcher, and must keep it loaded, off safe, and on you at all times? Because after all, it's for your protection. And if you didn't, to jail. (I bet those on the left would love that) Or a anti-tank missile? Or an aircraft carrier? Or that we should all eat peanuts, even if you're allergic.

I laugh at your assertion that the court is conservative. It is progressive. If it were truly conservative, it would have been struck down.

Despite what people on the left like to claim about 'evolving interpretations of a living document to fit the times,' it is not a 'living' document that can die, it is 'eternal.' To be read as it was written, no interpretations needed, and if we wanted to change something, we could amend it. Only that has the nasty little problem of requiring 3/4 of the states to ratify it.

And on a side note about the owning a gun, they put in the Constitution that we all have a right to bear arms for protection and other things. They could have just as easily required us all to have guns for the same reason. They did not. I don't know about you, but I kinda think that if anyone knew what they meant, it was those who wrote it in the first place. It's a good idea for you to have a gun to protect yourself, but they didn't make you.


I WILL NOT COMPLY, and I'll take my chances in the internment camp with my fellow patriotic Americans. If they can keep us in that is :D

Aside from telling me that even someone on the right like Roberts can see it for what it is and that the government is not overstepping it's authority there, it tells me that the United States has a system that is lauded by people on the right when they "do what they are supposed to" and held up as an archtype liberal institution that is destroying America when they do not. The fact that you compare a constitutionally-valid initiative such as Obamacare with genocide shows your bias in this case. Please do everyone a favour and read the majority opinion on this case before you try and compare it to a joke like that.

The court is conservative; maybe by a small margin, but it is conservative. Being conservative and progessive are not mutally exclusive, thankfully, and in this case it is good to see that the justices are not completely cemented in their ideological viewpoints that they allowed it to obscure the correct ruling. Face it: a conservative judge decided that Obamacare was constitutional. It could have been struck down, but Roberts made his decision. You might not like it, but you have very little grounds to say you know better than a Chief Justice, just like you have very little grounds to say you know how the Constitution was meant to be interpreted. That is not up to you to decide; that's the perogative of the Supreme Court, and this time they decided Obamacare was constitutional based upon hundred-year old interpretations made by previous courts. Even if you reject that the Constitution is an evolving document, the decision came about as the result of previous decisions, making your arguments against the Supreme Court even more pointless.

Please, keep saying you will not comply if it makes you feel better and that those who support health care are anti-Americans. I think America's political situation would be a lot better without idiots like you who, instead of treating fellow Americans are equals, paint them as inferior and anti-American if they belive something different than you. I'm sorry to pop your bubble here, but you WILL comply because, despite your patriotic ignorance, you won't be refusing to pay taxes anytime soon and you know it. You do not have the balls to do that, and as I am sure you have been told by Fox News, anyone who doesn't pay taxes is a Communist. Better pay up. comrade.

Deepcover
2012-06-28, 22:17
If Nancy Pelosi is happy well then I am happy. That is all.

Mayhem
2012-06-28, 22:24
even someone on the left like Kennedy

Credibility at zero, not likely to rise anytime soon.

Thunder Bird
2012-06-28, 23:18
Credibility at zero, not likely to rise anytime soon.

The fact that he assumed Justice Kennedy is liberal because of his last name speaks volumes to how well he feels he needs to inform himself.

Will E Worm
2012-06-29, 00:36
A loss of personal liberty for any American will never be a victory, regardless of whom is taking it away. Its scary that so many people on this board refuse to see it that way.

I'm glad that those in favor of this law are in the national minority.

You tell them. We want this overturned and we are not stoping until it is.



So gun insurance should be mandatory?


I think that's a brilliant idea, to be honest.

:nono:

darkwarrior3007
2012-06-29, 00:42
I think ban-one is confusing Justice Kennedy with the Kennedy family. Considering the accusations that he, PR and Justaman are making about me, I find this very amusing.

I was actually going to write that Justice Kennedy isn't related to THOSE Kennedys, but I figured the poster was smarter than that and felt that maybe he meant something else. Of course, I may have been giving him too much credit.

Will E Worm
2012-06-29, 00:43
Blue Cross/Blue Shield and all the others have had "death panels" for years. But until they get sick, most Americans don't realize that they're nothing but numbers and loss statistics to the insurance companies. I know... they killed my aunt when she had cancer and they wouldn't pay for a bone marrow transplant. Fuck them!

What this means to me is that I now don't have to worry about going fully independent, giving up my employer sponsored plan and having to beg some shit bag insurance company for a 60/40, $700 a month junk policy, just because I now have pre-existing conditions. Yeah baby! These middle fingers are for you, big insurance. :thefinger

And now, all you people who want to roll the dice and not have insurance, but you sure as hell don't mind running to the ER as soon as you get sick, run up a big bill that you can't/won't pay and then cause people like me to have to pay higher bills, now you dead beats have to have insurance too! I say, good! :thumbsup:

There will still be many people that do not have insurance and never will.

There will be many illegals that are treated and never pay. I shouldn't have to pay if they don't.

So, in 2014 half or more of the population will be rounded up because they will not pay the tax for being forced to buy something?
2014 the war starts?

Straight Shooter
2012-06-29, 00:47
In fifty years we will be talking about the ACA like it's Medicare or Social Security. People will love it, they'll be bitching and moaning whenever someone will try and make changes to it.

Straight Shooter
2012-06-29, 01:43
Nice classless post. You do realize all Obama had to do was open up free competition of healthcare across state borders and you would have received coverage, at a competing (lower) cost, for your pre-existing condition. It's called the free market and competition amongst companies drives prices down. It happened to car insurance so it would have inevitably occurred within health insurance. Now, this albatross of a tax will cost us upwards of over $15 Trillion dollars. AND, we still don't know what's in it ("We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it" Nancy Pelosi).


How will taking away freedom of choice take away from freedom? This is a rhetorical, right?

Just in case it isn't:


And on, and on, and on...

How is this not a blatant violation of liberty?


*And for the record, I don't believe I've ever called you stupid, and I don't think you are. I've generally leave the name calling to you and your board mates.

1. In 2014, the Affordable Insurance Exchange will go into effect. Exchanges will offer you a choice of health plans that meet certain benefits and cost standards. Starting in 2014, Members of Congress will be getting their health care insurance through Exchanges, and you will be able buy your insurance through Exchanges too

2. In 2014, the law will implement the second phase of the small business tax credit for qualified small businesses and small non-profit organizations. In this phase, the credit is up to 50% of the employer’s contribution to provide health insurance for employees. There is also up to a 35% credit for small non-profit organizations

Before you make another post, I suggest you visit the ACA's website and get all the faqs because clearly you have no idea what is even in it.
http://www.healthcare.gov/index.html

Thunder Bird
2012-06-29, 07:29
We want this overturned and we are not stoping until it is.

Articulate your reasons for wanting it overturned.

ban-one
2012-06-29, 08:01
I think ban-one is confusing Justice Kennedy with the Kennedy family. Considering the accusations that he, PR and Justaman are making about me, I find this very amusing.

No, I'm not confusing him. He's not what any one would call 'right wing' or 'conservative' and he voted in line with what the Constitution grants the Federal government power to do.

Unlike some other people who ruled that a claimed non-tax is a tax, and that unlike any other tax that is placed on everyone uniformly, you can get out of this tax by buying insurance. A tax on a non action, as opposed to an action, like sales tax or income tax.

And what accusations have I made about you?


I WILL NOT COMPLY

Red Spyder
2012-06-29, 08:51
Et tu, John?

Either way, I will not comply. Romney now most definetly gets my vote.

lurkingdirk
2012-06-29, 09:08
I WILL NOT COMPLY

I have to say, this just makes you look foolish. You will, in fact, comply (or COMPLY, I guess). Or, you'll have enormous fines, or go to jail. It's just that simple. It's the law.

:2 cents:

ban-one
2012-06-29, 09:27
Aside from telling me that even someone on the right like Roberts can see it for what it is and that the government is not overstepping it's authority there, it tells me that the United States has a system that is lauded by people on the right when they "do what they are supposed to" and held up as an archtype liberal institution that is destroying America when they do not. The fact that you compare a constitutionally-valid initiative such as Obamacare with genocide shows your bias in this case. Please do everyone a favour and read the majority opinion on this case before you try and compare it to a joke like that.

The court is conservative; maybe by a small margin, but it is conservative.

Roberts might be 'right' and the court 'conservative' to you on the left, but to someone on the right, he and it are not. Just like some on the left think Obama's too far to the right. (ha) That's a matter of perspective. And would you feel the same way if when Bush (a progressive) had both houses they had pushed through legislation that said you must own a gun? I wouldn't want that any more than I suspect you would, and I like guns. And when have I compared it to genocide?



Being conservative and progessive are not mutally exclusive, thankfully, and in this case it is good to see that the justices are not completely cemented in their ideological viewpoints that they allowed it to obscure the correct ruling. Face it: a conservative judge decided that Obamacare was constitutional. It could have been struck down, but Roberts made his decision. You might not like it, but you have very little grounds to say you know better than a Chief Justice, just like you have very little grounds to say you know how the Constitution was meant to be interpreted. That is not up to you to decide; that's the perogative of the Supreme Court, and this time they decided Obamacare was constitutional based upon hundred-year old interpretations made by previous courts. Even if you reject that the Constitution is an evolving document, the decision came about as the result of previous decisions, making your arguments against the Supreme Court even more pointless.

Actually, conservative and progressive are mutually exclusive. One wants small government that intrudes as little in our lives as possible. The other wants to slowly make us communist Russia, or at least socialist Europe, with an all-controlling government. How can they be anything but mutually exclusive? So, the four liberal justices weren't cemented by their ideology? I have just as much grounds to say I know more than any Justice on this or any matter as you or any one else on this, or any matter. Their, your, and my opinion on a matter are all equally valid, no matter how much we may disagree. And now you're arguing that their opinion is based on the last 100 years, and not the Constitution. So which is it? Ruling based on 100 years of progressivism warping our country or the document as written? Choose carefully, because only one leads to constitutionality.



Please, keep saying you will not comply if it makes you feel better and that those who support health care are anti-Americans. I think America's political situation would be a lot better without idiots like you who, instead of treating fellow Americans are equals, paint them as inferior and anti-American if they belive something different than you. I'm sorry to pop your bubble here, but you WILL comply because, despite your patriotic ignorance, you won't be refusing to pay taxes anytime soon and you know it. You do not have the balls to do that, and as I am sure you have been told by Fox News, anyone who doesn't pay taxes is a Communist. Better pay up. comrade.

I will keep saying it because I mean it, and I have never called anyone who supported it 'anti-American,' nor have I treated anyone as 'inferior,' (if you're referring to my use of 'patriotic,' it's patriotic to stand up for what you believe is best for your country, no matter what that position is, meaning just because we don't like the law or choose not to follow it; and I thought the left was big on choice, but I guess that's only if you choose the option you want us to choose; doesn't make me any less patriotic or American than someone who likes it and follows it) or compared it to genocide, and if you truly believed in your position, you would not need false accusations to argue your side. You'd use reason and logic. Tactics of the right. Not the tactics of the left that cannot argue their point, so they must resort to calling people 'idiots' (I do believe you did do that, called me 'ignorant,' and made false accusations) merely because they have a different opinion than you. And finally we end with the left tactic of bullying. Saying I don't have what it takes to not pay taxes and calling me a commie. That's adorable. Who's to say I won't refuse to pay a tax because I choose not to have health insurance? Certainly not you or anyone else. And it doesn't really work to call someone on the right a commie, an ideology 180 degrees opposite of the right, especially for not paying taxes. Communism is on the left, and they're all for paying more and higher taxes. So, in your chosen words, who's a communist for doing what?


I WILL NOT COMPLY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8RCQDDsMpU

ban-one
2012-06-29, 10:00
I have to say, this just makes you look foolish. You will, in fact, comply (or COMPLY, I guess). Or, you'll have enormous fines, or go to jail. It's just that simple. It's the law.

:2 cents:

You guys can talk all you want about how I, or anyone else will comply with an unfair tax or pay huge fines, or go to jail(interment camp), but as I recall, another king of the world's most powerful country already tried that once. Right before he lost his 13 colonies and the most powerful country had its butt handed to it by the 20-25% of the colonists that didn't like it. We've got 60% that don't like it, before it's even started, and that number can only go up.


I WILL NOT COMPLY

Oh, and here's a little hint as to what will happen if it comes to it:


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

bobjustbob
2012-06-29, 10:20
Articulate your reasons for wanting it overturned.

May I take that task on? I will just paraphrase Worm.

:flaccid::suspicious::surprise::brick::mad::crying ::brick::rolleyes:

So there.

BobEWorm.

Thunder Bird
2012-06-29, 12:11
May I take that task on? I will just paraphrase Worm.

:flaccid::suspicious::surprise::brick::mad::crying ::brick::rolleyes:

So there.

BobEWorm.

haha BobEWorm, job well done!

Straight Shooter
2012-06-29, 12:57
You keep talking "W" like he's relevant... He hasn't been president since the previous decade. Get some new material.

Yes he is relevant because we are still paying for his policies. We still have tax cuts, Medicare part D, and a war in Afghanistan.

Red Spyder
2012-06-29, 13:20
Resistance is futile. You shall all be assimilated

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/Picard_as_Locutus.jpg

or else....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg/800px-Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg

I'm sure all "liberals" would be extremely happy if us conservatives were herded away like that for having the audacity to question The One, right? :2 cents:

Will E Worm
2012-06-29, 15:12
Articulate your reasons for wanting it overturned.

It is unconstitutional. That is all you need to know. :hatsoff:


I WILL NOT COMPLY

No one that can think for themselves will comply.


Et tu, John?

Either way, I will not comply. Romney now most definetly gets my vote.

Maybe, or third party. Obama has to go that is number one.



BobEWorm.

You wish. :tongue:


Resistance is futile. You shall all be assimilated

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/Picard_as_Locutus.jpg

or else....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg/800px-Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg

I'm sure all "liberals" would be extremely happy if us conservatives were herded away like that for having the audacity to question The One, right? :2 cents:

That's what they want. That is what they think tolerance is. Do as we say! :facepalm:

Thunder Bird
2012-06-29, 16:01
It is unconstitutional. That is all you need to know.

The Supreme Court begs to differ. What's apparent is that you're a Fox News Koolaid sipping right-wing towel-boy that can't form a cogent argument to save your life. I blame your parents, but it's not all bad, you are the reigning FreeOnes Asshat of the Year after all.

Mayhem
2012-06-29, 16:08
Resistance is futile. You shall all be assimilated

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/Picard_as_Locutus.jpg

or else....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg/800px-Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg

I'm sure all "liberals" would be extremely happy if us conservatives were herded away like that for having the audacity to question The One, right? :2 cents:

Wrong. First of all, it was Georgy II the Messiah who gave us America's Gestapo (Dept. of Homeland Security and TSA, and convinced you, his mindless drones that it was a good thing), made torture legal (and you, his mindless drones went along with it), lied his way into an illegal war and then didn't win it (and you, his mindless drones still think he was right) and let a major American city get wiped of the map (while you, his mindless drones shrugged and thanked your God that it didn't happen to a white city). So keep your bullshit Third Reich analogies to yourself. And we know who the Borg-clones are. The ones who will vote for Mitt-wit and think that they're going to get a better country out of it.

Keep in mind, if Conservatives were hauled away, us Liberals would have to find something else to point and laugh at.

Will E Worm
2012-06-29, 16:32
The Supreme Court begs to differ.

They can't be taken seriously. Especially after Obama appointed two clowns to the kangaroo court.


The Supreme Law of the land is the Constitution.

Before Presidents take office they have to swear to uphold the Constitution.


Bush, unlike Obama, could actually be sworn in without stumbling through it like he was three years old.

Thunder Bird
2012-06-29, 16:43
Bush, who was appointed to office by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision.

Will E Worm
2012-06-29, 16:55
Bush, who was appointed to office by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision.

Gore could not accept defeat.

He would have taxed us even more.

Thunder Bird
2012-06-29, 17:02
Gore could not accept defeat.

He would have taxed us even more.

That's a Supreme Court decision you agree with though, right?

ban-one
2012-06-29, 17:17
Resistance is futile. You shall all be assimilated

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a1/Picard_as_Locutus.jpg


I like the 'Star Trek' reference. Should have made it myself. However, as also a fan of 'Stargate SG-1' (except for those last 2 seasons and those 2 stupid movies at the end), the Borg bring to mind the Asgard's problem with the Replicators, as the Replicators could assimilate and adapt to all of the Asgard advancements in effort to defeat them. (Just like the Borg and the Enterprise's efforts to adapt to stop them.) Then we, Earth, the unsophisticated people still using gunpowder-powered projectiles instead of energy weapons, are able to easily defeat the Replicators with our low-tech projectile weapons. Namely shotguns, which I suspect would have done a number on the Borg. Getting back on track, the low-tech and few of number SG-1 were able to defeat the high-tech and many of number Replicators. Any one see a parallel there?



or else....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg/800px-Stroop_Report_-_Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising_06b.jpg

I'm sure all "liberals" would be extremely happy if us conservatives were herded away like that for having the audacity to question The One, right? :2 cents:

It'll probably happen. It's why I posted what I did about it being a concentration/internment camp (which only happens under big gov types) and the SERE training on resistance and escape, because there will be so many of us who refuse to bend over and take it (revolutionary movements tend to be 20-25% of the population, making it between 60 and 75 million of us with even more sympathetic to the cause and helping behind the scenes, and we're talking about being rounded up and held by fellow countrymen, many also sympathetic, in our native country, not, say, Germans and in Germany after being shot down), they won't have the conventional jail space. They'll hafta put us all in like Rhode Island, or Connecticut, and good luck keeping that many people in that large an area under control.


I WILL NOT COMPLY

ban-one
2012-06-29, 18:01
The fact that he assumed Justice Kennedy is liberal because of his last name speaks volumes to how well he feels he needs to inform himself.

You and Mayhem both assume that I assumed something. Can you read my mind? Do you know what I was thinking when I wrote that? Don't think so.

It could have been that it wasn't someone like Thomas writing it, or that the wisdom of so many was that Kennedy would be the swing vote to uphold and could never side against and would probably bring Roberts along to make it 6-3 and not 5-4 to make the ruling less contentious, or some of both, or more that would waste my time time list, as I could also assume you won't believe me and will continue to think what you want, right or wrong. But we all know what happens when you assume, right?


And because we're still on this thread,

I WILL NOT COMPLY

Rey C.
2012-06-29, 18:18
I WILL NOT COMPLY

What does that mean exactly? That you refuse to get health insurance? That if you have it, you're going to cancel it and fly a Tea Party flag in front of your house? Well, you're just going to be hurting yourself. If you get seriously ill and you have anything in the way of assets, the hospital billing company will just take whatever you have to satisfy the bill. So if that is the case, not to be insulting, but that simply means that you don't have good sense.

I don't think you people should be forced to have health insurance. But at the same time, I would repeal Reagan's Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, so that hospitals wouldn't be forced by Federal law to treat you when you got sick and used the ER as a primary care doctor. What would my solution look like? It would look like a desolate, empty field across the property line of the hospital, that hospital security would roll you people into and let you die. You don't want to be insured? I'm perfectly OK with that. But hospitals shouldn't be forced to treat you and I shouldn't be forced to subsidize your unpaid bills because I do have insurance. The GOP'er god, Ronnie Reagan, is the cause of this.

Thunder Bird
2012-06-29, 18:56
You and Mayhem both assume that I assumed something. Can you read my mind? Do you know what I was thinking when I wrote that? Don't think so.

It could have been that it wasn't someone like Thomas writing it, or that the wisdom of so many was that Kennedy would be the swing vote to uphold and could never side against and would probably bring Roberts along to make it 6-3 and not 5-4 to make the ruling less contentious, or some of both, or more that would waste my time time list, as I could also assume you won't believe me and will continue to think what you want, right or wrong. But we all know what happens when you assume, right?


And because we're still on this thread,

I WILL NOT COMPLY

The "wisdom of so many" assumptive mind readers, including yourself, right? I really don't see what your fucking problem is. The court upheld the constitutionality of the health care law, get over it.

vodkazvictim
2012-06-29, 19:07
Shit.
If america carries on like this I and other foreigners will lose our sense of smug supremacy :(

El Diablo Blanco
2012-06-29, 19:11
Wrong. First of all, it was Georgy II the Messiah who gave us America's Gestapo (Dept. of Homeland Security and TSA, and convinced you, his mindless drones that it was a good thing), made torture legal (and you, his mindless drones went along with it), lied his way into an illegal war and then didn't win it (and you, his mindless drones still think he was right) and let a major American city get wiped of the map (while you, his mindless drones shrugged and thanked your God that it didn't happen to a white city). So keep your bullshit Third Reich analogies to yourself. And we know who the Borg-clones are. The ones who will vote for Mitt-wit and think that they're going to get a better country out of it.

Keep in mind, if Conservatives were hauled away, us Liberals would have to find something else to point and laugh at.


I didn't hear anything about your great messiah abolishing the patriot act, or the tsa. In fact, he resigned some of the very same Constitutional intrusions that Bush instituted. In fact, your half a fucking retard signed a bill allowing unmanned drones to fly over American soil.

Mayhem
2012-06-29, 19:48
Kennedy said the whole thing's unconstitutional. Kennedy. What's that tell you?



Aside from telling me that even someone on the left like Kennedy can see it for what it is and that the government has no authority there,



You and Mayhem both assume that I assumed something. Can you read my mind? Do you know what I was thinking when I wrote that? Don't think so.


We don't have to read your mind. It's bad enough that we have to read what you post.

Straight Shooter
2012-06-29, 22:27
I WILL NOT COMPLY

Stop being a free rider and take some personal responsibility. Fine don't comply, but when you get sick and have to be rushed to the emergency room the hospital should have the option to turn you away. Government is not going to foot the bill for you anymore.

BlueBalls
2012-06-29, 22:33
I WILL NOT COMPLY EITHER!!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!!!!!!

Even though i don't live in the US, so my compliance is absolutely meaningless!!!!111!!!! RAWRRRRR!

Will E Worm
2012-06-30, 00:23
That's a Supreme Court decision you agree with though, right?

They did not need to do anything. Count the votes and move on.



I didn't hear anything about your great messiah abolishing the patriot act, or the tsa. In fact, he resigned some of the very same Constitutional intrusions that Bush instituted. In fact, your half a fucking retard signed a bill allowing unmanned drones to fly over American soil.

:goodpost:


Stop being a free rider and take some personal responsibility. Fine don't comply, but when you get sick and have to be rushed to the emergency room the hospital should have the option to turn you away. Government is not going to foot the bill for you anymore.

He's not a "free rider". :facepalm: Hospitals have to take people in if they are sick. :tongue:

They can turn away illegals and don't. :nono:



I WILL NOT COMPLY EITHER!!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!!!!!!

Even though i don't live in the US, so my compliance is absolutely meaningless!!!!111!!!! RAWRRRRR!

Foreigner you already have failed nationalized health care.

monicasilver
2012-06-30, 00:44
I found the ruling interesting. Can't say I disagree with it. They certainly slapped Obama in the delivery.

It seems to me that the decision was made partly to protect the integrity of the court.

Mayhem
2012-06-30, 00:56
I didn't hear anything about your great messiah abolishing the patriot act, or the tsa. In fact, he resigned some of the very same Constitutional intrusions that Bush instituted. In fact, your half a fucking retard signed a bill allowing unmanned drones to fly over American soil.

Oh OK, so Bush and the entire piece-of-shit GOP is off the hook because the next guy didn't (couldn't) undo the massive damage that they caused. Well argued.

Mayhem
2012-06-30, 01:17
Romneycare Architect: Individual Mandate 'Very Similar' In Obama, Romney Bills

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/romneycare-individual-mandate-jonathan-gruber-mitt-romney-barack-obama_n_1637882.html


One of the few individuals who worked on health care reform under both Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama said on Friday that the controversial individual mandate provision was virtually identical in the bills signed into law by each of them.

"They are very similar," said Jonathan Gruber, a professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an interview with The Huffington Post. "They aren't the same exact mandate, but they have the same basic structure."

Gruber was a key architect of the sweeping health insurance reform legislation that Romney passed as governor of Massachusetts. In addition, he advised Democrats and the Obama administration on how to build the Affordable Care Act. As that 18-month process unfolded, Gruber famously unloaded on Romney for his attacks on Obamacare, arguing that the two were the "same fucking bill."

Those similarities, he said on Friday, extend to the individual mandate.

"Basically the way it would function is you have a form 1099-HC, which is like a health care form you get from your insurer every year, and you would attach it to your taxes," he said, describing how the mandate would work nationally. "That form would show you have health insurance and you're fine. If you don't have health insurance, you fill out a form on your taxes ... which computes whether you're exempt from the penalty, [which would be the case] if your income is too low or insurance costs too much. Finally, if you don't have the form and you're not exempt, there will be a penalty on your taxes."

In Massachusetts, the Department of Revenue is in charge of enforcing the penalty. For the Affordable Care Act, the responsibility would rest with the IRS.

"The size of the penalty in Massachusetts is an amount that depends on your income," Gruber said. According to the Associated Press, in 2012, "those making more than three times the poverty level –- $32,676 for an individual –- pay the highest penalty of $105 per month, or $1,260 per year."

Nationally, added Gruber, "they do a similar thing. It would be whatever is bigger: $695 or 2.5 percent of your income."

As governor, Romney initially opposed including an individual mandate as part of health care reform. Under pressure from legislators, he ended up signing one into law. Since then, Gruber relayed, the policy has worked well. In the first year alone, 98 percent of tax filers "got it right." A total of 44,000 residents in a state of 6 million paid a penalty.

"I will say that the fines have gone down," current Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) said Friday morning on MSNBC, "because more and more people, as the statistics you cited indicate, have taken up insurance."

As recently as 2008, Romney was comfortable with the idea that such a penalty constituted a tax. But the contours of the debate have changed dramatically since then. And in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate under Congress' taxing authority, the presumptive Republican nominee has begun denouncing the mandate as a major tax hike in the strongest possible terms.

"But the people of America, I think, recognize that this legislation is not right for America. It will cost $500 billion in taxes," Romney said at a fundraiser on Friday morning.

In a conference call organized by the Obama campaign, Patrick insisted that the mandate did not constitute a tax. "This is a penalty," he said.

A top Obama administration official, meanwhile, said that if Romney were to argue that Obamacare included a massive tax hike, the president was prepared to respond that, by logical extension, Romney raised taxes in Massachusetts.

A request for comment from the Romney campaign was not immediately returned.

UPDATE: Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul responded in an email, which noted (accurately) that Obama insisted the mandate wasn't a tax while crafting reform. But Saul did not account for how that makes it any different from what Romney passed as governor.

Governor Romney disagreed with the court’s ruling and its findings. What's troubling is the President told the American people the mandate was not a tax, and then sent his lawyer to the Supreme Court to argue it was a tax. So he said one thing to get it passed, and then contradicted himself to get it past the court. This court's decision raises the stakes for the election in November. While Governor Romney is disappointed with the court's ruling, ultimately it is the people who will have the final word.

Straight Shooter
2012-06-30, 01:59
He's not a "free rider". :facepalm: Hospitals have to take people in if they are sick. :tongue:



You have no idea what you're talking about. He is a free rider, who pays for him since he doesn't have health insurance? Most of the burden falls on taxpayers, with the government providing tens of billions of dollars annually to help hospitals care for the uninsured. Privately insured Americans also pay a price as insurers raise premiums to reflect higher charges from hospitals. It's bums like him who are causing our premiums to go up. Take some personal responsibility and pay your own goddamn bill.

El Diablo Blanco
2012-06-30, 07:34
Oh OK, so Bush and the entire piece-of-shit GOP is off the hook because the next guy didn't (couldn't) undo the massive damage that they caused. Well argued.

He didn't seem to have any problems signing Executive orders that suited HIS needs. I guess when you spend THREE FUCKING YEARS of your Presidency, worrying about how to force the taxpayers to pay more taxes, so the welfare slugs can get more welfare, you tend to get tunnel vision.

I think you'll find it pretty fuckin impossible to find many posts that I've made in favor of what much of Bush/Cheney, and his ass clowns did. In fact, I think you'd be pretty fuckin lucky to find ANY post I've ever made, agreeing with ANYTHING ANY of our leaders have done, starting with Nixon. If you do, please quote it.

Master Roshi
2012-06-30, 08:29
so I wonder what's gonna happen in another 20 years when people are still gonna be sicker than ever and still dropping like flies at a record pace due to degenerative diseases SMH

Thunder Bird
2012-06-30, 10:00
They did not need to do anything. Count the votes and move on.

In summation, you have no problem with court decisions you agree with, but those you disagree with are "unconstitutional". Way to argue like a third grader.

ban-one
2012-06-30, 10:01
What does that mean exactly? That you refuse to get health insurance? That if you have it, you're going to cancel it and fly a Tea Party flag in front of your house? Well, you're just going to be hurting yourself. If you get seriously ill and you have anything in the way of assets, the hospital billing company will just take whatever you have to satisfy the bill. So if that is the case, not to be insulting, but that simply means that you don't have good sense.

I don't think you people should be forced to have health insurance. But at the same time, I would repeal Reagan's Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, so that hospitals wouldn't be forced by Federal law to treat you when you got sick and used the ER as a primary care doctor. What would my solution look like? It would look like a desolate, empty field across the property line of the hospital, that hospital security would roll you people into and let you die. You don't want to be insured? I'm perfectly OK with that. But hospitals shouldn't be forced to treat you and I shouldn't be forced to subsidize your unpaid bills because I do have insurance. The GOP'er god, Ronnie Reagan, is the cause of this.

I don't have health insurance because I'm in that age group of about 20-30 that's young, healthy, and because of our youth, believe our selves to be invulnerable (I personally know better than that one), and makes up the bulk of the uninsured Americans, along with those who happen to be wealthy enough. I haven't been to a doctor since I was 15, but if I needed to, I'd pay out of pocket like I do the dentist, or if too expensive to pay all at once, you can arrange payment plans, and in the event of a catastrophe, there's a loan from the bank. All the things people used to do before all-covering health insurance. It's my life and my money, and I'll do with it what I want.

I agree with you that hospitals shouldn't be forced to treat people. There are plenty of hospitals that would treat you anyway, or be specifically designed to treat those who can't afford health insurance. Either by charitable contributions, or they use older, but still just as good equipment that costs much less, making their services affordable to those with less, and would keep prices down for everyone.


I WILL NOT COMPLY

ban-one
2012-06-30, 10:04
The "wisdom of so many" assumptive mind readers, including yourself, right?

I guess you don't watch TV, or read papers, or listen to radio, huh?


I really don't see what your fucking problem is. The court upheld the constitutionality of the health care law, get over it.

And I guess you never will if you can't see the problem for yourself.


I WILL NOT COMPLY

ban-one
2012-06-30, 10:10
Stop being a free rider and take some personal responsibility. Fine don't comply, but when you get sick and have to be rushed to the emergency room the hospital should have the option to turn you away. Government is not going to foot the bill for you anymore.

I'm not a free rider, I do take personal responsibility by paying my own way, and I guess you didn't know that the government will be footing more of the bill as people take the cheap way out of pay the fine that was purposely set cheaper than insurance. They want you to pay the fine and not have insurance so you'll be dependent on them.


I WILL NOT COMPLY

ban-one
2012-06-30, 11:17
We don't have to read your mind. It's bad enough that we have to read what you post.

So, you're still reading my mind and assuming things on, "Kennedy said the whole thing's unconstitutional. Kennedy. What's that tell you?"

Believe me, I know not to assume political bent based on a person's name. I mean just look at Reagan's son. That apple fell far from the tree. And I know of Carters that are in no way related to a certain, well-known failure, whose second term is being served by the current President.

My comment of, "Aside from telling me that even someone on the left like Kennedy can see it for what it is and that the government has no authority there," came from a different post, made after the, "Kennedy said the whole thing's unconstitutional. Kennedy. What's that tell you?" comment and in response to something else. So you can't really connect the two like you're trying to do, to say from the start that I assumed he's on the left because of his name or even that in my first comment that I was saying he was on the left, as I did not mention Kennedy and the left together in any way in that first post. You assumed that because I'm on the right, that I must be trying to say Kennedy's on the left (for whatever reason you'd like to subscribe to), when I had made no statement to that effect yet. If I had said that before the first post, or as part of, yeah you could more easily make that connection, but it would still be a stretch. But after? No. So, you wanna try that again?

And (at this writing) you still haven't answered my question as to accusations I've supposedly made about you. We wanna back these up so there could possibly be a response, or just let the seriousness of the charge fight your battle instead of the nature of the evidence? I wanna know what I supposedly did. Show me, or retract your statement. Or I'll find you more amusing than I already do.

And like another post, since we are still on this thread,

I WILL NOT COMPLY

ban-one
2012-06-30, 11:52
I WILL NOT COMPLY EITHER!!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!!!!!!

Even though i don't live in the US, so my compliance is absolutely meaningless!!!!111!!!! RAWRRRRR!

Just out of curiosity, if you don't live in the US, and this doesn't apply to you, why are you commenting on this?

He pauses to think a moment, commenting half to himself, Although, it would affect everyone in the world that the US will no longer be pushing the cutting edge of medical science, allowing it to stagnate if not retreat, and that the rest of the world will have no where to go for good health care when their socialized stuff refuses them.

Never mind. Feel free to comment here.



To inject some more humor into all of this than I already have, and for some variety, I almost need little parodies of like war propaganda serials to follow. Say, with someone standing triumphantly before a waving "Don't Tread On Me" flag as the announcer says,

"So join Reverend Al and the resistance in saying 'Resist we much,' and tell your over-bearing government 'I WILL NOT COMPLY.'"

Thunder Bird
2012-06-30, 12:19
I guess you don't watch TV, or read papers, or listen to radio, huh?

And I guess you never will if you can't see the problem for yourself.

Nice cop outs.

Master Roshi
2012-06-30, 13:04
“Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come
when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict
the art of healing to one class of Men and deny equal privileges to
others; the Constitution of the Republic should make a Special
privilege for medical freedoms as well as religious freedom.”
― Benjamin Rush

all the healers must be freed up and allowed to heal and practice ALL forms of medicine, not just the monopolistic allopathic model which is controlled by the FDA, big pharma and the insurance companies who are owned by the banks

Straight Shooter
2012-06-30, 14:03
I'm not a free rider, I do take personal responsibility by paying my own way, and I guess you didn't know that the government will be footing more of the bill as people take the cheap way out of pay the fine that was purposely set cheaper than insurance. They want you to pay the fine and not have insurance so you'll be dependent on them.


I WILL NOT COMPLY

You need to get your facts right. How is the government footing the bill if the person chooses to pay the fine themselves? The private insurance companies aren't going anywhere. When you get insurance it's with a private insurance company not with the government

Do us all a favor and go to the ACA's website and get all the basic faqs before you make another post
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/index.html

Master Roshi
2012-06-30, 15:31
oDNe8F_3SSA

Supafly
2012-06-30, 15:35
I appreciate a passionate debate.

But when people go and compare a program that provides healthcare to the Holocaust, sorry, you just nuked yourself out of the conversation.

Will E Worm
2012-06-30, 23:57
You have no idea what you're talking about. He is a free rider, who pays for him since he doesn't have health insurance? Most of the burden falls on taxpayers, with the government providing tens of billions of dollars annually to help hospitals care for the uninsured. Privately insured Americans also pay a price as insurers raise premiums to reflect higher charges from hospitals. It's bums like him who are causing our premiums to go up. Take some personal responsibility and pay your own goddamn bill.

Read below.


I'm not a free rider, I do take personal responsibility by paying my own way, and I guess you didn't know that the government will be footing more of the bill as people take the cheap way out of pay the fine that was purposely set cheaper than insurance. They want you to pay the fine and not have insurance so you'll be dependent on them.

I WILL NOT COMPLY

They will be paying with the money they stole from you and I. ;) The federal government doesn't have money.



so I wonder what's gonna happen in another 20 years when people are still gonna be sicker than ever and still dropping like flies at a record pace due to degenerative diseases SMH

They don't care if we die. They want population control.


In summation, you have no problem with court decisions you agree with, but those you disagree with are "unconstitutional". Way to argue like a third grader.

Not at all. :facepalm: I said they did not have to do anything. Gore should have accepted defeat like a man.



I guess you don't watch TV, or read papers, or listen to radio, huh?

And I guess you never will if you can't see the problem for yourself.

I WILL NOT COMPLY

People would not be liberals if they were intelligent to see things that were right in front of their face.

;)

robot_r0ck
2012-07-01, 02:19
Jesus Xenu Allah Harry Penis Balls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I WILL NOT COMPLY and bla bla bla bla bla stupid liberals... bla bla bla bla bla stupid conservatives! i'm drunk. thanks.

squirting vagina
http://45.imagebam.com/download/X9VyD3TMDQmlZgLTDjvydA/14176/141757282/55.gif
http://www.imagebam.com/image/ac562e141757282

and politics = :baconsalt:

robot_r0ck
2012-07-01, 02:24
and Worm. You really might be mentally retarded. Just sayin'. :2 cents:

Thunder Bird
2012-07-01, 06:47
Not at all. I said they did not have to do anything. Gore should have accepted defeat like a man.

I don't know how old you are nor do I know how much of that particular election you accurately remember, but here's the facts, all the major news outlets declared Florida for Gore, including Fox News. Then for no reason at all, same data, same projections, Brit Hume of Fox News declared Florida for Bush. It remained "undecided" until the Supreme Court intervened and issued a 5-4 decision in Bush's favor. Again, you like Supreme Court decisions you agree with, but those you don't are "unconstitutional". Keep arguing like a third grader, Asshat.


You want to talk about not accepting defeat, Norm Coleman would be a fitting candidate.

Will E Worm
2012-07-01, 14:22
I WILL NOT COMPLY and bla bla bla bla bla stupid liberals... bla bla bla bla bla stupid conservatives! i'm drunk. thanks.


and Worm. You really might be mentally retarded. Just sayin'. :2 cents:

:facepalm: Just keep drinking it seems to be the only thing you're good at.

robot_r0ck
2012-07-01, 14:53
:facepalm: Just keep drinking it seems to be the only thing you're good at.

...and the only thing your good at is............. nothing. Except for posting the constant smileys when you lose an argument (which is all the time). :tongue:

Will E Worm
2012-07-02, 00:15
...and the only thing your good at is............. nothing. Except for posting the constant smileys when you lose an argument (which is all the time). :tongue:

:beer: <--- You all day. :tongue:

That is what the smileys are here for. :hatsoff:

Straight Shooter
2012-07-02, 01:56
:beer: <--- You all day. :tongue:

That is what the smileys are here for. :hatsoff:

Will, what do you think about us adopting a single payer system? basically Medicare for all. What's wrong with that? It's single payer, private provider

Will E Worm
2012-07-02, 15:06
Will, what do you think about us adopting a single payer system? basically Medicare for all. What's wrong with that? It's single payer, private provider

It is fine the way it is now. No more changes.

Straight Shooter
2012-07-02, 15:23
It is fine the way it is now. No more changes.

Are you seriously saying that our healthcare system is fine the way it is? Even Republicans admit that our system needs to be reformed

Thunder Bird
2012-07-02, 15:24
It is fine the way it is now. No more changes.

It's not "fine". Insurance rates are too high and there are too many people that can't afford any insurance at all. The biggest problem Romney is facing when making "Obamacare" a winning issue for his campaign is to come up with what they plan to replace it with, if they can repeal it. Running on merely repealing it without a viable alternative is a losing strategy.

lurkingdirk
2012-07-02, 15:24
It is fine the way it is now. No more changes.

In what way is it fine? There are millions who should have health care that don't. Premiums are sky rocketing. Insurance and drug companies are making ridiculous profits which inflate the cost for everyone. How is that fine? Why should there not be reform? The health care system in the U.S. is very broken, and needs some change. I don't think Obamacare is the answer, but it is, at least, a step in some direction. Leaving the health care system as it is really is not an option.

Jack Davenport
2012-07-02, 15:52
The problem with the SCOTUS decision is that the individual mandate was deemed a tax when the lawmakers either refused to deem it as such for purely political reasons or were clueless that it could be construed as a tax. Roberts' called it for what it is, but he could have ruled just as easily on the way it was presented before the court. The only thing that can be derived from his ruling is that he feels that the American people get the laws and representatives that they deserve and in essence remanded this back to the American people. If Obama is re-elected in November then no one is to blame for this but the majority of Americans that put him back in office.

Fool me once.........

Master Roshi
2012-07-02, 16:34
Obamacare won't help to dismantle the medical monopoly that has taken hold of this country since the findings of the Rockefeller funded Flexnor Report

bobjustbob
2012-07-03, 08:40
There are 2 things I don't like about it. Nothing to control the prices of health care and how the program is going to be funded.

Many look at big pharma as one of the roots of high costs because they make big profits. I see these companies as doing the work to provide drugs that can be used more effectively than more expensive surgery. There is a cost for them to do this. They pay scientists salaries to research and develop the drugs. Testing is long and FDA compliance is even longer. Bear in mind that not everything in the labs makes it to the shelves. For every one that makes it, how many did they spend money on that never will?

There has to be something done about tort reform. The money handed out for suits is ridiculous. We all have to pay for this every time we visit a doctor. For them to cover their asses they put you through too many tests and pay mega bucks in insurance.

At one time we had general practitioners. Anything medical went to them and only when necessary would recommend a specialist. Sometimes they would even come out to the house. Not any more. All of the doctors have become specialists and they sign up as primary care providers. They either farm you out to a specialist or send you to the ER.

As for the funding, If this is going to be a tax on those not enrolled in a plan then who are the people to pay for it. People that are not on a plan have reasons. Most likely they work for a place too small to carry one or are unemployed. What are the prices and deductibles going to be to buy one of these federally acceptable plans? I have yet to see answers for any of these questions.

Bobjustbob.

Mayhem
2012-07-03, 09:18
Romney Adviser: Individual Mandate Is A 'Penalty,' Not A 'Tax'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/02/eric-fehrnstrom-mitt-romney-individual-mandate-tax_n_1642951.html


Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to Mitt Romney, admitted Monday that he actually agrees with the Obama administration on something: the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act is a "penalty" and not a "tax."

Since the Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama's health care law but ruled that its mandate is a tax, Republicans have criticized him for imposing a massive tax on the American public.

The Romney campaign joined in this line of attack, with an adviser telling The Huffington Post's Jon Ward that the Supreme Court's ruling would help them politically.

"Frankly, to be able to tell you your taxes have been raised by this bill and you didn't know that, as opposed to trying to explain Congress's powers under the commerce clause, it's easier," the Romney adviser said, referencing the issue of the law's constitutionality.

But in a Monday interview on MSNBC's "The Daily Rundown," Fehrnstrom contradicted this statement, agreeing with the Obama administration that the mandate is a "penalty" on individuals who do not purchase insurance -- not a tax.

"[T]he governor has consistently described the mandate as a penalty," said Fehrnstrom. "Let's take a step back and look at what the president has said about Obamacare. In order to get it past the Congress, he insisted publicly and to the members of Congress that the mandate was not a tax. After it passed the Congress, he sent his solicitor general up to court to argue that it was a tax. Now he is back to arguing that it's not a tax. So he’s all over the map."

The tax line is uncomfortable for Romney, whose signature health care reform legislation in Massachusetts also had an individual mandate and could therefore be construed as a tax -- a definition the presumptive GOP presidential nominee wants to avoid.

Fehrnstrom, in his MSNBC interview, tried to focus on accusing the Obama administration of flip-flopping on whether the mandate is a tax or a penalty. But host Chuck Todd continued to press Fehrnstrom, finally getting him to admit that he agrees with the Obama administration:

TODD: It sounds like Governor Romney though agrees that it’s not a tax. So what you just said is that Governor Romney agrees that it’s not a tax. You guys called it a tax?
FEHRNSTROM: The governor disagreed with the ruling of the court. He agreed with the dissent written by Justice Scalia which very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax.

TODD: Okay. Which -- so I guess -- we're -- I think we're talking around each other. The governor does not believe the mandate is a tax? That is what you're saying?

FEHRNSTROM: The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court's ruling that the mandate was a tax.

TODD: But he agrees with the president that it is not -- and he believes that you should not call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?

FEHRNSTROM: That's correct.

Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter quickly tweeted after the interview, "Well, that clears it up.@EricFehrn says on @dailyrundown that Mitt agrees with the Pres. on mandate as a penalty, not a tax, for freeriders."

In a follow-up email, Romney spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg argued that the Obama is the one who needs to clarify his position.

"The Supreme Court left President Obama with two choices: the federal individual mandate in Obamacare is either a constitutional tax or an unconstitutional penalty," she wrote. "Governor Romney thinks it is an unconstitutional penalty. What is President Obama's position: is his federal mandate unconstitutional or is it a tax?"

larss
2012-07-03, 11:40
I don't have health insurance because I'm in that age group of about 20-30 that's young, healthy, and because of our youth, believe our selves to be invulnerable (I personally know better than that one), and makes up the bulk of the uninsured Americans, along with those who happen to be wealthy enough. I haven't been to a doctor since I was 15, but if I needed to, I'd pay out of pocket like I do the dentist, or if too expensive to pay all at once, you can arrange payment plans, and in the event of a catastrophe, there's a loan from the bank. All the things people used to do before all-covering health insurance. It's my life and my money, and I'll do with it what I want.

I WILL NOT COMPLY

I have read most of this thread so far, and this post is the most short sighted that I have read.
Yes, you are healthy and don't think that anything could possibly happen to you, and even if it does, you can pay for it!
What happens if you are shot during a robbery (for example)? You need hospitalisation for immediate care and need to remain in hospital for (let's say) 3 months. After which you are unable to work for at least another 6 months to a year and need drugs which you will have to pay for. Tot that lot up and see if you can still afford not to have insurance. What bank is going to loan you the money when you have no immediate way of paying it back?
Your argument here is akin to saying that you do not need car insurance because you will just pay for whatever damage you cause when you have an accident. Yes, I know that car insurance is there to protect 3rd parties as well, but that is only part of it.

I live in England, where there is the National Health Service. It may not be the best care in the world, but it is both universal, and a damn sight better than no care at all.
We also have the choice to "go private" and pay for private health insurance. This is not instead of the NHS but supplements it.

Just thought I'd add my :2 cents: to the thread.

Straight Shooter
2012-07-03, 14:26
I live in England, where there is the National Health Service. It may not be the best care in the world, but it is both universal, and a damn sight better than no care at all.
We also have the choice to "go private" and pay for private health insurance. This is not instead of the NHS but supplements it.

Just thought I'd add my :2 cents: to the thread.

Now why do you have to go and bring facts into this conversation?

D-rock
2012-07-03, 14:44
Obamacare won't help to dismantle the medical monopoly that has taken hold of this country since the findings of the Rockefeller funded Flexnor Report

Maybe, but if people don't like it they can blame all those out there that either didn't want, only pretended to want, or weren't will to do any meaningful reform (which is basically all Republicans but other people also), and keep any pretty much the only meaningful, ethical, sensible, solution, a single payer system run by the government like almost every other first world industrialized nation has, from the possibility of ever getting created.

Most of those people also cry and throw a nonsensical ideological fit whenever some regulation and price fixing is thought of being implemented for medical professions and medical/pharmaceutical corporations.

What we got instead is a half-measure. It's better than what we had before if kind of half-ass, but if people don't think the solution was good enough they should be complaining about others than the ones who put the new system into place, because they are the ones that made it impossible for any good solution to come about.

Red Spyder
2012-07-03, 15:02
1. What a classy thread title: "SUCK IT CONSERVATIVES!!!"? Really? :facepalm:

2. It is constitional....as a TAX! So, I guess, there SUCK IT LIBERALS! Now your messiah is responsible for a huge tax increase that will affect everyone single of us, even though he had said: "The last thing we should do is raising taxes on the middle class" and yet the middle class will be affected the most. The very poor got Medicaid, anyone over 65 got Medicare, the very rich can pay hospital visits out of the change in their sofas, people who got a full time job in a big business got health insurance through their company, but it's going to be the middle class small businesses who are going to suffer the most. I keep hearing libs (Pelosi) saying "it's not a tax, it's a penalty". No, it isn't. The supreme court said it's constitutional but as a tax. So choice A. It's a penalty but unconstitutional or B. It's a tax but constitutional. And the good thing about taxes: congress has the power to cut them, so vote republican, I guess, since the dems give us no other choice.

3. Our Declaration of Independence says that we are: "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights... [such as] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". So why is it that you guys don't find anything wrong with a law that now makes liberty and/or life a privilege and no longer a right? I mean, right now to avoid prison all you need to do is AVOID doing bad things (like don't rape, don't kill, don't steal) but you're not required to buy anything to remain free. Now having health insurance is a requirement to remain free? How do you guys who consider yourselves to be smarter than us Neanderthal conservatives are not able to see anything wrong with that? Or is it that you guys just don't care? Any law that puts a requirements like that over your freedom is wrong. Or do you liberals actually believe that life and liberty should be privileges? That would be very scary if that were the case.

4. And no, the "you need car insurance to drive a car" argument does not apply as it's completely different. For starters, if you don't have a car, you don't need to get car insurance and you don't have to pay a penalty or tax because you don't have it. And also, get a manual from your DMV and it will tell you "driving is not a right, it's a privilege", otherwise we wouldn't need driver licenses if driving were a right. But life and liberty are rights so why should we be required to purchase something to remain free? Regardless of how compassionate or good intentioned you believe this "law" to be, it is an evil monstruosity and you guys don't even realize it, just how smart really are you guys? Remember what the road to hell is paved with: good intentions.

5. Now, don't acuse the Re-pubes of not having any ideas. They do have ideas but because they don't involve single payer, you guys are so closed minded to not even consider them. I've heard of some of their proposals (health savings accounts, insurance competition over state lines, personalized insurance policies instead of one-size-fits-all policies, among others) and thing is, some of us conservatives would consider a single payer, but as a last resort. If nothing else works, we can always drop what we're doing and go for single payer. I mean, if you get a cut on your arm and it gets infected, you wouldn't amputate your arm right away, you'd try to heal it, but if it turns gangrenous I guess it might have to go. And just like amputating an arm, single payer is irreversible (or almost irreversible), repub. proposals aren't, plus they are more focused on fixing the only thing that's wrong with our health care system: the cost.

:2 cents:

Will E Worm
2012-07-03, 17:36
:goodpost:


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Red Spyder again.


An unconstitutional act. Not surprising.

Straight Shooter
2012-07-03, 18:56
1. What a classy thread title: "SUCK IT CONSERVATIVES!!!"? Really? :facepalm:

2. It is constitional....as a TAX! So, I guess, there SUCK IT LIBERALS! Now your messiah is responsible for a huge tax increase that will affect everyone single of us, even though he had said: "The last thing we should do is raising taxes on the middle class" and yet the middle class will be affected the most. The very poor got Medicaid, anyone over 65 got Medicare, the very rich can pay hospital visits out of the change in their sofas, people who got a full time job in a big business got health insurance through their company, but it's going to be the middle class small businesses who are going to suffer the most. I keep hearing libs (Pelosi) saying "it's not a tax, it's a penalty". No, it isn't. The supreme court said it's constitutional but as a tax. So choice A. It's a penalty but unconstitutional or B. It's a tax but constitutional. And the good thing about taxes: congress has the power to cut them, so vote republican, I guess, since the dems give us no other choice.

3. Our Declaration of Independence says that we are: "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights... [such as] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". So why is it that you guys don't find anything wrong with a law that now makes liberty and/or life a privilege and no longer a right? I mean, right now to avoid prison all you need to do is AVOID doing bad things (like don't rape, don't kill, don't steal) but you're not required to buy anything to remain free. Now having health insurance is a requirement to remain free? How do you guys who consider yourselves to be smarter than us Neanderthal conservatives are not able to see anything wrong with that? Or is it that you guys just don't care? Any law that puts a requirements like that over your freedom is wrong. Or do you liberals actually believe that life and liberty should be privileges? That would be very scary if that were the case.

4. And no, the "you need car insurance to drive a car" argument does not apply as it's completely different. For starters, if you don't have a car, you don't need to get car insurance and you don't have to pay a penalty or tax because you don't have it. And also, get a manual from your DMV and it will tell you "driving is not a right, it's a privilege", otherwise we wouldn't need driver licenses if driving were a right. But life and liberty are rights so why should we be required to purchase something to remain free? Regardless of how compassionate or good intentioned you believe this "law" to be, it is an evil monstruosity and you guys don't even realize it, just how smart really are you guys? Remember what the road to hell is paved with: good intentions.

5. Now, don't acuse the Re-pubes of not having any ideas. They do have ideas but because they don't involve single payer, you guys are so closed minded to not even consider them. I've heard of some of their proposals (health savings accounts, insurance competition over state lines, personalized insurance policies instead of one-size-fits-all policies, among others) and thing is, some of us conservatives would consider a single payer, but as a last resort. If nothing else works, we can always drop what we're doing and go for single payer. I mean, if you get a cut on your arm and it gets infected, you wouldn't amputate your arm right away, you'd try to heal it, but if it turns gangrenous I guess it might have to go. And just like amputating an arm, single payer is irreversible (or almost irreversible), repub. proposals aren't, plus they are more focused on fixing the only thing that's wrong with our health care system: the cost.

:2 cents:

1. Class? you realize this is a porn message board right:facepalm:

2. There is an incentive for businesses to get healthcare for their employees because they will receive tax incentives. Put the special subsidies and the exemption together, and the result is a law that’s pretty clearly a good deal for small businesses.

3. Even Romney agrees that it's a penalty and not a tax. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/romney-campaign-calls-obamacare-a-penalty-not-a-tax/

4. Critics of the Affordable Care Act also should keep in mind that the model for the mandate they condemn now was dreamed up in a conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, more than 20 years ago and has been enthusiastically supported by Republican lawmakers over the years. One wonders what the critics would be saying if, instead of being passed as part of Obamacare, the mandate had been part of a successful Republican program pushed by a Republican officeholder. Somebody, for example, like Mitt Romney.

Before you make another post I suggest you learn what is in the healthcare law
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/index.html

Straight Shooter
2012-07-03, 18:57
1. What a classy thread title: "SUCK IT CONSERVATIVES!!!"? Really? :facepalm:

2. It is constitional....as a TAX! So, I guess, there SUCK IT LIBERALS! Now your messiah is responsible for a huge tax increase that will affect everyone single of us, even though he had said: "The last thing we should do is raising taxes on the middle class" and yet the middle class will be affected the most. The very poor got Medicaid, anyone over 65 got Medicare, the very rich can pay hospital visits out of the change in their sofas, people who got a full time job in a big business got health insurance through their company, but it's going to be the middle class small businesses who are going to suffer the most. I keep hearing libs (Pelosi) saying "it's not a tax, it's a penalty". No, it isn't. The supreme court said it's constitutional but as a tax. So choice A. It's a penalty but unconstitutional or B. It's a tax but constitutional. And the good thing about taxes: congress has the power to cut them, so vote republican, I guess, since the dems give us no other choice.

3. Our Declaration of Independence says that we are: "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights... [such as] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". So why is it that you guys don't find anything wrong with a law that now makes liberty and/or life a privilege and no longer a right? I mean, right now to avoid prison all you need to do is AVOID doing bad things (like don't rape, don't kill, don't steal) but you're not required to buy anything to remain free. Now having health insurance is a requirement to remain free? How do you guys who consider yourselves to be smarter than us Neanderthal conservatives are not able to see anything wrong with that? Or is it that you guys just don't care? Any law that puts a requirements like that over your freedom is wrong. Or do you liberals actually believe that life and liberty should be privileges? That would be very scary if that were the case.

4. And no, the "you need car insurance to drive a car" argument does not apply as it's completely different. For starters, if you don't have a car, you don't need to get car insurance and you don't have to pay a penalty or tax because you don't have it. And also, get a manual from your DMV and it will tell you "driving is not a right, it's a privilege", otherwise we wouldn't need driver licenses if driving were a right. But life and liberty are rights so why should we be required to purchase something to remain free? Regardless of how compassionate or good intentioned you believe this "law" to be, it is an evil monstruosity and you guys don't even realize it, just how smart really are you guys? Remember what the road to hell is paved with: good intentions.

5. Now, don't acuse the Re-pubes of not having any ideas. They do have ideas but because they don't involve single payer, you guys are so closed minded to not even consider them. I've heard of some of their proposals (health savings accounts, insurance competition over state lines, personalized insurance policies instead of one-size-fits-all policies, among others) and thing is, some of us conservatives would consider a single payer, but as a last resort. If nothing else works, we can always drop what we're doing and go for single payer. I mean, if you get a cut on your arm and it gets infected, you wouldn't amputate your arm right away, you'd try to heal it, but if it turns gangrenous I guess it might have to go. And just like amputating an arm, single payer is irreversible (or almost irreversible), repub. proposals aren't, plus they are more focused on fixing the only thing that's wrong with our health care system: the cost.

:2 cents:

1. Class? you realize this is a porn message board right:facepalm:

2. There is an incentive for businesses to get healthcare for their employees because they will receive tax incentives. Put the special subsidies and the exemption together, and the result is a law that’s pretty clearly a good deal for small businesses.

3. Even Romney agrees that it's a penalty and not a tax. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/romney-campaign-calls-obamacare-a-penalty-not-a-tax/

4. Critics of the Affordable Care Act also should keep in mind that the model for the mandate they condemn now was dreamed up in a conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, more than 20 years ago and has been enthusiastically supported by Republican lawmakers over the years. One wonders what the critics would be saying if, instead of being passed as part of Obamacare, the mandate had been part of a successful Republican program pushed by a Republican officeholder. Somebody, for example, like Mitt Romney.

Before you make another post I suggest you learn what is in the healthcare law
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/index.html

zeeblofowl_1969
2012-07-04, 01:08
In what way is it fine? There are millions who should have health care that don't. Premiums are sky rocketing. Insurance and drug companies are making ridiculous profits which inflate the cost for everyone. How is that fine? Why should there not be reform? The health care system in the U.S. is very broken, and needs some change. I don't think Obamacare is the answer, but it is, at least, a step in some direction. Leaving the health care system as it is really is not an option.

Worms apparently some form of Drug rep....

Will E Worm
2012-07-04, 15:13
1. Class? you realize this is a porn message board right:facepalm:

:nono: Then leave.

D-rock
2012-07-04, 15:19
1. What a classy thread title: "SUCK IT CONSERVATIVES!!!"? Really? :facepalm:

2. It is constitional....as a TAX! So, I guess, there SUCK IT LIBERALS! Now your messiah is responsible for a huge tax increase that will affect everyone single of us, even though he had said: "The last thing we should do is raising taxes on the middle class" and yet the middle class will be affected the most. The very poor got Medicaid, anyone over 65 got Medicare, the very rich can pay hospital visits out of the change in their sofas, people who got a full time job in a big business got health insurance through their company, but it's going to be the middle class small businesses who are going to suffer the most. I keep hearing libs (Pelosi) saying "it's not a tax, it's a penalty". No, it isn't. The supreme court said it's constitutional but as a tax. So choice A. It's a penalty but unconstitutional or B. It's a tax but constitutional. And the good thing about taxes: congress has the power to cut them, so vote republican, I guess, since the dems give us no other choice.

3. Our Declaration of Independence says that we are: "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights... [such as] Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". So why is it that you guys don't find anything wrong with a law that now makes liberty and/or life a privilege and no longer a right? I mean, right now to avoid prison all you need to do is AVOID doing bad things (like don't rape, don't kill, don't steal) but you're not required to buy anything to remain free. Now having health insurance is a requirement to remain free? How do you guys who consider yourselves to be smarter than us Neanderthal conservatives are not able to see anything wrong with that? Or is it that you guys just don't care? Any law that puts a requirements like that over your freedom is wrong. Or do you liberals actually believe that life and liberty should be privileges? That would be very scary if that were the case.

4. And no, the "you need car insurance to drive a car" argument does not apply as it's completely different. For starters, if you don't have a car, you don't need to get car insurance and you don't have to pay a penalty or tax because you don't have it. And also, get a manual from your DMV and it will tell you "driving is not a right, it's a privilege", otherwise we wouldn't need driver licenses if driving were a right. But life and liberty are rights so why should we be required to purchase something to remain free? Regardless of how compassionate or good intentioned you believe this "law" to be, it is an evil monstruosity and you guys don't even realize it, just how smart really are you guys? Remember what the road to hell is paved with: good intentions.

5. Now, don't acuse the Re-pubes of not having any ideas. They do have ideas but because they don't involve single payer, you guys are so closed minded to not even consider them. I've heard of some of their proposals (health savings accounts, insurance competition over state lines, personalized insurance policies instead of one-size-fits-all policies, among others) and thing is, some of us conservatives would consider a single payer, but as a last resort. If nothing else works, we can always drop what we're doing and go for single payer. I mean, if you get a cut on your arm and it gets infected, you wouldn't amputate your arm right away, you'd try to heal it, but if it turns gangrenous I guess it might have to go. And just like amputating an arm, single payer is irreversible (or almost irreversible), repub. proposals aren't, plus they are more focused on fixing the only thing that's wrong with our health care system: the cost.

:2 cents:

Uhh...do you consider paying for police in your community to take away your "freedom", how about those fire department people, or the people who created the highways near you, or how about paying for those schools all those kids go to around you, what about that military that keeps people from invading us and taking us over? Guess what, you don't have a choice in paying for them either, and they have been around for a long time now, longer than you have been alive. Some of them have had to be paid for by the taxpayers since this countries beginning. It's a pretty good thing people can't and couldn't just choose to opt out of those things. The idea that there are certain social responsibilities that one must do that cost personal resources being against inherent "freedom" is laughable. Taking care of your fellow countrymen is a part of that whole "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" idea. Like the listed things above it's intertwined with it. The idea of individual liberty isn't a blank check to get out of doing anything one doesn't like when it doesn't personally maximize benefit to themselves. You seem to treat it as such. You also sound like your grasping at straws, and even if it's a tax, SO FREAKING WHAT?

Sorry, but letting people get out of every thing that might inconvenience them because they don't like it isn't some inherent right of the Constitution, or nature, or God for that matter. If it was we wouldn't have any of the above. Society itself would crumble. People in relative power shouldn't be able to pick and choose what obligations they have to give to the society that fosters them. Whether you like it or not you, me, and pretty much everybody else is a part of the health care system. Even if you nave never had a single medical issue in your entire life no matter how small, which is unlikely, I'm sure you weren't born out in the woods somewhere. It would be astoundingly rare for a person that never uses it, so nobody can claim they not a part of it.

(I also don't know where this poor will get Medicaid stuff is from either. I once checked into it and because I was neither disabled nor had children I didn't qualify. It's also not like that keeps them from being legally obligated to pay for the treatment they get either.)

As for any Republican health plan I have ever heard I have ever seen anything that wasn't pathetically inadequate to the problems at hand. I would say it's like putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound but that might be generous. They just don't want to do anything that actually solves the problem. It's basically play baby stuff that's amounts to code speak for, "We don't really want to solve this or do anything. Our ideology doesn't let us handle corporations no matter how sane and smart it might be to do so. It doesn’t help we are in bed with most of them anyway. We don't really give a crap about you if you suffer from the flaws of the system. We got ours so screw you, but hey here are some lame half-hearted things we came up with so we don't technically have to tell you to screw off, and because we know there is a significant portion of the population that for one reason or another are dumb enough to believe us." Keep in mind that while they do that and while the system doesn't get fixed millions of people in this country suffer.

lurkingdirk
2012-07-04, 15:21
Worms apparently some form of Drug rep....

He also refuses to answer questions he finds too hard.

Rey C.
2012-07-04, 15:37
I have read most of this thread so far, and this post is the most short sighted that I have read.
Yes, you are healthy and don't think that anything could possibly happen to you, and even if it does, you can pay for it!
What happens if you are shot during a robbery (for example)? You need hospitalisation for immediate care and need to remain in hospital for (let's say) 3 months. After which you are unable to work for at least another 6 months to a year and need drugs which you will have to pay for. Tot that lot up and see if you can still afford not to have insurance. What bank is going to loan you the money when you have no immediate way of paying it back?
Your argument here is akin to saying that you do not need car insurance because you will just pay for whatever damage you cause when you have an accident. Yes, I know that car insurance is there to protect 3rd parties as well, but that is only part of it.

I live in England, where there is the National Health Service. It may not be the best care in the world, but it is both universal, and a damn sight better than no care at all.
We also have the choice to "go private" and pay for private health insurance. This is not instead of the NHS but supplements it.

Just thought I'd add my :2 cents: to the thread.

Even in less severe cases, a trip to the ER and one day of hospitalization in the U.S. can easily cost $5K. Reagan's Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires hospitals with emergency rooms on campus to accept and treat anyone and everyone, regardless or national origin, legal status or ability to pay. There is no requirement that people have to be admitted, but there is a requirement that they must be stabilized before being discharged. There is absolutely no legal requirement that doctors in private practice have to treat anyone who does not have insurance, or who has insurance that offers unacceptable payment terms (like Medicaid or certain discount/junk insurance policies). So what people without insurance do in the U.S. is use the emergency room as a place to get primary/urgent care. They're treated, released and then... they do not pay.

This business where someone claims they will get a bank loan or work out a payment plan is just fantasy. That typically does not happen. They'll establish long term payment plans, but they're seldom fully satisfied. And that is why so many hospitals have been pushed to the brink of bankruptcy in the U.S. - like my local hospital. Anyone who has even a basic understanding of the financial system would know that banks are not lending to even those with good collateral now. To buy a house with even good income and a stellar credit rating is very difficult now. If a person had anything meaningful in the way of assets and/or income, they'd likely have insurance already (as few people with assets would put those assets at risk by not having medical and property insurance). And banks don't loan money to broke, sick people just because they need the money. In reality, what happens is, the hospitals and doctors who work in ER's in the U.S. get stiffed by the people without insurance, but who make claims that "the check will be in the mail" or they'll get the money from Uncle Lewis and he'll pay the bill. They don't pay. People like me, with insurance and assets, pay for them through higher bills to cover the credit losses.

My opinion stands: these "freedom loving patriots", who willingly go uninsured, but who run to the ER as soon as they get sick, are freeloaders. And typically these people do not have enough in the way of assets or income to satisfy their unpaid medical bills. One of the most common causes of personal bankruptcy in the U.S. is unpaid medical bills. That is a fact. And when people enter bankruptcy, all of their creditors (other than certain government debts, like taxes, etc.) take a hit. So when individuals go bankrupt because of unpaid medical bills they tend to help take hospitals with ER's into bankruptcy as well.

Other than forcing people to get health insurance, the only practical (though somewhat Draconian) solution that I have is to repeal Reagan's Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. That would prevent these willingly uninsured freeloaders from using ER's as free health care facilities and placing a burden on the rest of us.

Straight Shooter
2012-07-04, 16:58
:nono: Then leave.

You're talking to the wrong person. He's the one expecting people to have class on a porn board:facepalm:

Mayhem
2012-07-04, 17:50
Mitt Romney: Individual Mandate 'Is A Tax'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/04/mitt-romney-individual-mandate_n_1649233.html


Contradicting his own top campaign adviser, Mitt Romney on Wednesday declared that the individual mandate contained in President Barack Obama's health care law is, indeed, a tax and not a penalty against those who refuse to buy coverage

"I said that I agree with the [Supreme Court']s dissent, and the dissent made it very clear that they felt [the individual mandate] was unconstitutional," Romney said in a released clip of a CBS News interview. "But the dissent lost. It's in the minority. And now the Supreme Court has spoken. And while I agree with the dissent, that's taken over by the fact that the majority of the court said it's a tax, and therefore, it is a tax."

Romney continued: "They have spoken. And there's no way around that. You can try and say you wish they decided a different way, but they didn't. They concluded it was a tax. That's what it is."

Romney also sat down with CNN for an interview, during which he repeated the new campaign line. The Supreme Court, he said, ruled that the mandate is a tax, "so it's a tax, of course, if that's what they say it is."

The remarks are a complete 180 from those made by two top advisers to the Romney campaign in recent days. Spokesperson Andrea Saul, two days ago, said that the governor "thinks [the mandate] is an unconstitutional penalty," not a tax. Top aide Eric Ferhnstrom, that same day, emphatically declared that the campaign did not believe the mandate was a tax.

"The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court's ruling that the mandate was a tax," Ferhnstrom said in a Monday interview with MSNBC's "The Daily Rundown."

The comments from Romney, delivered during his July 4 break in New Hampshire, also clearly gave way to the counter-argument that, by his own definitio, he raised taxes during his time as Massachusetts governor. The individual mandate, after all, is the concept that Romney helped spearhead as part of the health care overhaul in the Bay State. The penalty that citizens in his home state were subjected to should they opt not to buy insurance is greater than those levied under Obamacare.



The early clip of the CBS interview, however, doesn’t make clear if Romney was asked to address the mandate he signed into law and whether he now could be declared a tax-raiser. A request to the Romney campaign for the full transcript was not immediately returned. It is unclear when the network will air the interview.

The Romney campaign's abrupt reversal comes as conservatives pressured the candidate to use the Supreme Court's ruling -- which held that the mandate was constitutional under Congress' taxing power - as a cudgel to attack the president. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Preibus went so far as to openly break with the campaign's position, declaring that the individual mandate is a tax.

UPDATE: 3:28 p.m. -- The Romney campaign has released a fuller transcript of the CBS interview, in which the candidate is asked the question: If the mandate is a tax under Obamacare, isn't it also a tax under Masscare?

"Actually the chief justice in his opinion made it very clear that at the state level, states have the power to put in place mandates," Romney replied. "They don’t need to require them to be called taxes in order for them to be constitutional. And as a result, Massachusetts’ mandate was a mandate, was a penalty, was described that way by the legislature and by me, and so it stays as it was."

The Romney campaign also sent over a portion of Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion in which he notes that because the Constitution "is not the source of" state power, states can act in ways that would be outlawed for the federal government. As Romney argues to CBS, "states can implement penalties and mandates and so forth ... which is what Massachusetts did."

This is a debate over semantics. In the end, the mandate used by Obama was virtually the same as the one used by Romney. Jonathan Gruber, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who worked on both health care laws, told the Huffington Post as much recently. Although it is justified legally under different definitions, it is the same legislative instrument.


I can't believe you Conservatives actually think this double-speaking bowl of jello would be a good President. :facepalm:

Will E Worm
2012-07-04, 17:56
You're talking to the wrong person. He's the one expecting people to have class on a porn board:facepalm:

You admit you are low-brow and don't have any class?

It's a misconception to say this is just a porn board.
Also, it says you look down on the females that are in porn. Not very nice.

zeeblofowl_1969
2012-07-05, 01:36
He also refuses to answer questions he finds too hard.

When pressed beyond their intellectual capabilities those of low IQ panic.

Will E Worm
2012-07-05, 01:56
When pressed beyond their intellectual capabilities those of low IQ panic.

:facepalm: No, he's a troll. He trolls on the net so much he has no time to raise his child. That's why child services are coming soon.

lurkingdirk
2012-07-05, 02:28
:facepalm: No, he's a troll. He trolls on the net so much he has no time to raise his child. That's why child services are coming soon.

Is your inability to answer questions that are beyond you why the short bus is coming for you soon?

Will E Worm
2012-07-05, 02:43
Is your inability to answer questions that are beyond you why the short bus is coming for you soon?


Messing up more threads in a place you do not need to be. :facepalm:

zeeblofowl_1969
2012-07-05, 11:22
Messing up more threads in a place you do not need to be. :facepalm:

Said the angry little worm

Will E Worm
2012-07-05, 14:35
Said the angry little worm

Are you Dirk's sockpuppet account?

lurkingdirk
2012-07-05, 14:38
Messing up more threads in a place you do not need to be. :facepalm:

By responding directly to the things you post? That's not messing up threads, that's not trolling, that's doing what should be done.

You're just too stupid to understand that point, it seems.

Will E Worm
2012-07-05, 14:46
By responding directly to the things you post? That's not messing up threads, that's not trolling, that's doing what should be done.

You're just too stupid to understand that point, it seems.

More off topic garbage. :facepalm: Stop trolling.

lurkingdirk
2012-07-05, 14:53
More off topic garbage. :facepalm: Stop trolling.

Stop responding, and I wont have anything to react to.

Simple, really. See how it works? You trash talk, I respond. I know your reading skills are low, but surely you can see how this works.

Will E Worm
2012-07-05, 15:06
Stop responding, and I wont have anything to react to.

Simple, really. See how it works? You trash talk, I respond. I know your reading skills are low, but surely you can see how this works.

My reading skills are fine. Just start agreeing with me. ;)

lurkingdirk
2012-07-05, 15:09
My reading skills are fine. Just start agreeing with me. ;)

http://ist1-4.filesor.com/pimpandhost.com/5/7/7/2/57728/1/5/U/L/15ULu/fuckyeahlemurs.gif (http://pimpandhost.com/image/16186184-original.html)

Will E Worm
2012-07-05, 15:23
http://ist1-2.filesor.com/pimpandhost.com/1/_/_/_/1/1/5/U/O/15UOo/0c6a5afe3afb113f_Picture_1_xxlarge.jpg (http://pimpandhost.com/image/16186364-original.html)

zeeblofowl_1969
2012-07-05, 19:29
Are you Dirk's sockpuppet account?

not at all

Will E Worm
2012-07-06, 14:45
not at all

Not convinced.


:dotdot:

Thunder Bird
2012-07-06, 14:49
Not convinced.

You should be. His argument was as strong as any you ever make.

lurkingdirk
2012-07-06, 14:53
Not convinced.


:dotdot:

I'd invite you to report the post to the mods, and ask them to do an IP check.

Nice deflection. You've done this a couple times - pretend to think I have duplicate accounts. I don't. I'd welcome any investigation you'd like.

Also, way to continue to get further off topic. You just can't help yourself. I know you have a tiny attention span, and your reading skills are well below average, but it's getting a bit tedious.

Supafly
2012-07-06, 15:16
I'd invite you to report the post to the mods, and ask them to do an IP check.

Nice deflection. You've done this a couple times - pretend to think I have duplicate accounts. I don't. I'd welcome any investigation you'd like.

Also, way to continue to get further off topic. You just can't help yourself. I know you have a tiny attention span, and your reading skills are well below average, but it's getting a bit tedious.

As a former moderator, I can tell you it is really a fast thing to find out who shares proxies, and with a little further doing, find out if the members use proxyservers.

So, stop these accusations, try to either get back to the actual discussion, or just accept defeat in a discussion for lack of argument.

zeeblofowl_1969
2012-07-06, 18:06
Not convinced.


:dotdot:

Sound like a personal problem, I suggest better hygiene. Enjoy 4 more years of Obama......

Will E Worm
2012-07-07, 00:15
Sound like a personal problem, I suggest better hygiene. Enjoy 4 more years of Obama......

It's a you problem. No more Obongo.

Straight Shooter
2012-07-07, 09:20
It's a you problem. No more Obongo.

Obongo? show some class

Will E Worm
2012-07-07, 14:28
Obongo? show some class

Why? He does not show any respect for America or our laws, or our way of passing laws.

He has to go. Back to Kenya. :D

lurkingdirk
2012-07-07, 15:13
Why? He does not show any respect for America or our laws, or our way of passing laws.

He has to go. Back to Kenya. :D

How exactly has he shown disrespect for America? He does things you don't like? That's not showing disrespect for America, it's being smart.

zeeblofowl_1969
2012-07-07, 15:15
Why? He does not show any respect for America or our laws, or our way of passing laws.

He has to go. Back to Kenya. :D

Shameful twerp. You are and will forever more be a piece of trash.

Straight Shooter
2012-07-07, 15:42
You admit you are low-brow and don't have any class?

It's a misconception to say this is just a porn board.
Also, it says you look down on the females that are in porn. Not very nice.


Why? He does not show any respect for America or our laws, or our way of passing laws.

He has to go. Back to Kenya. :D

Class? Republican Hypocrisy:facepalm:

Mayhem
2012-07-07, 15:48
Can a mod close this thread please? There is nothing more to be said, apparently.

Thunder Bird
2012-07-07, 15:48
He has to go. Back to Kenya.

:nono:

El Diablo Blanco
2012-07-07, 15:54
How exactly has he shown disrespect for America? He does things you don't like? That's not showing disrespect for America, it's being smart.

Personally, I feel he disrespects this country, and the Constitution, buy trying very hard to usurp it. Removing the gun issue from the table, he still has no respect for what the Constitution stands for, and has clearly demonstrated a desire to create a North American union....which would effectively destroy the sovereignty of this great country. He has surrounded himself with people that hold the same values, and makes no attempt to hide it.

Sadly, so have the past 4 or 5 administrations.

I can't speak for Will, but my distaste has little to do with party affiliation...but certainly goes to the character of those involved.

Will E Worm
2012-07-07, 15:55
:nono:

:1orglaugh You people, and sockpuppets. :tongue:

Straight Shooter
2012-07-07, 15:56
Personally, I feel he disrespects this country, and the Constitution, buy trying very hard to usurp it. Removing the gun issue from the table, he still has no respect for what the Constitution stands for, and has clearly demonstrated a desire to create a North American union....which would effectively destroy the sovereignty of this great country. He has surrounded himself with people that hold the same values, and makes no attempt to hide it.

Sadly, so have the past 4 or 5 administrations.

I can't speak for Will, but my distaste has little to do with party affiliation...but certainly goes to the character of those involved.

Did you have the same problem with Bush? you know with the indefinite detentions,torture, illegal wiretapping, etc

Thunder Bird
2012-07-07, 15:59
You people, and sockpuppets.

I would rather you lose the ability to post similes instead of your rep.

lurkingdirk
2012-07-07, 16:33
Personally, I feel he disrespects this country, and the Constitution, buy trying very hard to usurp it. Removing the gun issue from the table, he still has no respect for what the Constitution stands for, and has clearly demonstrated a desire to create a North American union....which would effectively destroy the sovereignty of this great country. He has surrounded himself with people that hold the same values, and makes no attempt to hide it.

Sadly, so have the past 4 or 5 administrations.

I can't speak for Will, but my distaste has little to do with party affiliation...but certainly goes to the character of those involved.

I have a lot of respect for this post. I certainly don't agree with it, but I am happy to have an actual conversation. Do you think you could give Will lessons?

I don't believe that President Obama has, in disrespected the country, or the Constitution, by removing the gun issue from the table. I understand what you are saying, but I really think that the President is doing what he believes best for the country. I also believe that he, and those working around him, have a lot better understanding of the Constitution than I do. That certainly doesn't mean that I'm going to blindly swallow everything that they dish up, but it does alter the perspective from which I begin the discussion.

El Diablo Blanco
2012-07-07, 23:53
Did you have the same problem with Bush? you know with the indefinite detentions,torture, illegal wiretapping, etc

You quoted my post.



Sadly, so have the past 4 or 5 administrations.

El Diablo Blanco
2012-07-08, 00:08
I have a lot of respect for this post. I certainly don't agree with it, but I am happy to have an actual conversation. Do you think you could give Will lessons?

I don't believe that President Obama has, in disrespected the country, or the Constitution, by removing the gun issue from the table. I understand what you are saying, but I really think that the President is doing what he believes best for the country. I also believe that he, and those working around him, have a lot better understanding of the Constitution than I do. That certainly doesn't mean that I'm going to blindly swallow everything that they dish up, but it does alter the perspective from which I begin the discussion.

Thank you.

No, I can't give him lessons...I'm still learning. Besides, if we all thought the same way, this board would be nothing but big floppy tits, gaping assholes......and no personality.

I disagree, but we all have our way. I'm not sure if you understand that, I removed the gun issue, because that's MY predominate focus, and I find his opinion on other issues just as disrespectful, but wanted to illustrate that my focus wasn't on that one issue

Unfortunately, that vast knowledge of the Constitution, is what they use to manipulate it, and twist it around, to suit their personal agendas.

Straight Shooter
2018-03-27, 21:33
Personally, I feel he disrespects this country, and the Constitution, buy trying very hard to usurp it. Removing the gun issue from the table, he still has no respect for what the Constitution stands for, and has clearly demonstrated a desire to create a North American union....which would effectively destroy the sovereignty of this great country. He has surrounded himself with people that hold the same values, and makes no attempt to hide it.

Sadly, so have the past 4 or 5 administrations.

I can't speak for Will, but my distaste has little to do with party affiliation...but certainly goes to the character of those involved.

Lol Romney lost. Get over it