The Canadian people are being lied to as well. Of the 40-50 million uninsured a significant portion are illegal immigrants or choose not to take insurance. Read again "choose". The vast majority of Americans are happy with their medical system. Yes there is a problem with those who are lower income level who do not qualify for medical aid and can't afford spiralling insurance premiums And yes there is a problem with pre-existing conditions..............all parties recognize that.
Will the SCOUS Strike Down Any Part of Obamacare?
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
So Bobby Jindal is a tool eh Peckrwood? One of the most popular Governors in the US with an approval rating of 3/4. His state has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. He's appointed state officials on a bi-partisan basis focusing on quality of the individual as opposed to political affiliation. He's vetoed more earmarks than any other Governor. He's shown great leadership in crisis - hurricanes, the oil spill. Puts fellow Democrats to shame really. Good call by him.Louisiana Gov. Jindal still refuses to implement Obamacare
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a possible Republican vice presidential contender who has refused to establish a federally mandated health care exchange in his state, said Friday that he will continue to ignore it.
When you are willing to work for minimum wage for 12 hours a day and so many people losing everything to the oil spill and hurricane there should be low unemployment, so I'm not impressed with that one bit. Now that the SCOTUS ruling is in, he is basically saying fuck it, I'm going to do it the way I want.So Bobby Jindal is a tool eh Peckrwood? One of the most popular Governors in the US with an approval rating of 3/4. His state has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. He's appointed state officials on a bi-partisan basis focusing on quality of the individual as opposed to political affiliation. He's vetoed more earmarks than any other Governor. He's shown great leadership in crisis - hurricanes, the oil spill. Puts fellow Democrats to shame really. Good call by him.
It's your interpretation and carelessness with terms that's the problem, the commerce clause presents no objection to the law. You were wrong in your prediction, the rest of this is fluff.Aardvark154 said:Fuji for the last time get with legal thought. The USSC indeed ruled that the individual mandate, was an overreach of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses. It, however, was saved because it was held to to be constitutionally a tax (in other words that was the point at which the Chief Justice changed his prospective and the justices with whom he was agreeing).
I must add that if you think I have this wrong so must the various State Attorneys General who had a teleconference earlier today.
This is going to have a serious impact on people who: a) are not part of a group policy, b) people and employers who are small operations e.g. medical offices of physicians in private practice , Architects in private practice, small legal partnerships etc. . . c) those who either offer or who receive truly comprehensive medical insurance (a "Cadillac plan") unless the same is provided through a Labour Union.The Canadian people are being lied to as well. Of the 40-50 million uninsured a significant portion are illegal immigrants or choose not to take insurance. Read again "choose". The vast majority of Americans are happy with their medical system. Yes there is a problem with those who are lower income level who do not qualify for medical aid and can't afford spiralling insurance premiums And yes there is a problem with pre-existing conditions..............all parties recognize that.
The U.S. may need heathcare reform, this law is not the way to do it.
This is going to have a serious impact on people who: a) are not part of a group policy, b) people and employers who are small operations e.g. medical offices of physicians in private practice , Architects in private practice, small legal partnerships etc. . . c) those who either offer or who receive truly comprehensive medical insurance (a "Cadillac plan") unless the same is provided through a Labour Union.
The U.S. may need heathcare reform, this law is not the way to do it.
The US does need healthcare reform, this law is probably the only way to start it.
Ultimately I think it comes down to a simple belief for me. That having access to proper medical should to considered a human rightThe Canadian people are being lied to as well. Of the 40-50 million uninsured a significant portion are illegal immigrants or choose not to take insurance. Read again "choose". The vast majority of Americans are happy with their medical system. Yes there is a problem with those who are lower income level who do not qualify for medical aid and can't afford spiralling insurance premiums And yes there is a problem with pre-existing conditions..............all parties recognize that.
Like freedom. Like free speech. It is something that should not be denied to anyone on the basis of imcome.
Whether all parties recognize it has no bearing on the fact that they won't do much about it.
As for the lies and liars. Look at any news network. Count the number of commercials that are medically related. That are for legal firms suing medical firms.
When was the last time a news agency went indepth on a medical or drug story with a negative spin? They used to do it all the time. Now the stories are being buried.
Can you look yourself in the mirror and say. "Its only a few American children without proper access. Hopefully they will be ok".
Would you deny them access because of there parents situation.
Would you visit the sins of the father on his sons?
Once you make it a money issue. An immigration issue. Any issue other than children deserve a chance to be healthy. To grow strong. Once you do this......
Get where I'm going here?
As a second point. I'll bring up a freedom that can be denied an american citizen under the present system
The freedom to choose their workplace.
Imagine if you will a parent with a child undergoing medical treatment for a serious ailment. Fortunately the insurance covers it. But it will take a while.
Now imagine the parents workplace turns toxic. A bad boss. Whatever
Can they leave?
And risk coverage denial at a new workpace?
What would you do? Stay I hope...........
But should you have to?
You wouldn't if it was a human right.
The freedom to choose their workplace.
Imagine if you will a parent with a child undergoing medical treatment for a serious ailment. Fortunately the insurance covers it. But it will take a while.
Now imagine the parents workplace turns toxic. A bad boss. Whatever
Can they leave?
And risk coverage denial at a new workpace?
What would you do? Stay I hope...........
But should you have to?
You wouldn't if it was a human right.
Good pic of ol' blubbery Boner!! A real time of tears for him!!It's comical watching GOPers act like a bunch of carping crybabies :
They are still going to play that old lie of it's going to cost millions of jobs, even though no evidence exists to show that, but so many dummies will believe them none the less.Good pic of ol' blubbery Boner!! A real time of tears for him!!
Or possibly crocodile tears.Good pic of ol' blubbery Boner!! A real time of tears for him!!
If pundits like Dick Morris are right, having this issue tossed back into the political arena as a prominent issue in this fall's election isn't necessarily a good thing for the Democrats.
http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-pyrrhic-victory/
As an American, I would have rather seen the individual mandate thrown out. As a partisan, I’m thrilled that we still have the issue to beat Obama with.
Yet there is discussion of bring it on. The undeclared electorate could be really be tired off this and look at it as a waste of time. A number of the swing states democrats have said bring it on.Or possibly crocodile tears.
If pundits like Dick Morris are right, having this issue tossed back into the political arena as a prominent issue in this fall's election isn't necessarily a good thing for the Democrats.
http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-pyrrhic-victory/
As i read Morris he's not to aware that, as I understand it, many of the poor will be exempt from 'tax' and others will receive credits to help pay the 'tax'. His figures on the support numbers are also suspect and have been discussed in earlier thread and show to be inaccurate.
Perhaps they're right. But as far as "Bring it on" goes, they may want to reconsider tapping into their inner John Kerrys.The undeclared electorate could be really be tired off this and look at it as a waste of time. A number of the swing states democrats have said bring it on.
Comments like this from Morris are totally false;
"Remember what this law does. It requires everyone to spend upwards of 7 percent of their income on health insurance or pay a fine of several thousand dollars. Neither is an attractive alternative for the young and the poor who are the president’s political base. And, with the expansion of Medicaid rejected by the Court, the government will not be there to help them."
That puts the rest of his column under a different light.
"Remember what this law does. It requires everyone to spend upwards of 7 percent of their income on health insurance or pay a fine of several thousand dollars. Neither is an attractive alternative for the young and the poor who are the president’s political base. And, with the expansion of Medicaid rejected by the Court, the government will not be there to help them."
That puts the rest of his column under a different light.
So,what's the truth then? How much do they need to spend and how much are the fines? How does the Medicaid rejection affect people who can't afford to buy? Since you said the above quote is false, can you tell us what is the truth then because I would want to know it as well.Comments like this from Morris are totally false;
"Remember what this law does. It requires everyone to spend upwards of 7 percent of their income on health insurance or pay a fine of several thousand dollars. Neither is an attractive alternative for the young and the poor who are the president’s political base. And, with the expansion of Medicaid rejected by the Court, the government will not be there to help them."
That puts the rest of his column under a different light.
Please show us how Mr. Morris is incorrect.Comments like this from Morris are totally false;
"Remember what this law does. It requires everyone to spend upwards of 7 percent of their income on health insurance or pay a fine of several thousand dollars. Neither is an attractive alternative for the young and the poor who are the president’s political base. And, with the expansion of Medicaid rejected by the Court, the government will not be there to help them."
That puts the rest of his column under a different light.
What you quote is indeed what the law will do, of course some people are never going to notice it because they have workplace related health insurance, others - those working for small businesses that cannot afford to provide health insurance, those in partnerships or single person proprietorship etc. . . are very definitely going to notice it. The most recient oops, was the news piece yesterday that most of the Federal wildfire crews working in Colorado do not have health insurance – since they are not considered to be full-time Government Service Employees.
Basicly what Dick Morris wrote, is what I posted much higher up this thread.
It would be better if the US simply imposed a universal health care tax on everyone and implemented a single payer system. However, the Romneycare system that Obama put in place is better than nothing. Romney really does not get enough credit for coming up with this.
Still say the best solution is to simply expand Medicare to cover all Americans.
The REAL PROBLEM is containing unregulated medical COSTS, not Medicare or Obamacare!!!
Until they regulate the GREED of the whole Medical Industry, like the rest of the world DOES, the Caprice of the Medical Industry will go on unabated!....:eyebrows:
The REAL PROBLEM is containing unregulated medical COSTS, not Medicare or Obamacare!!!
Until they regulate the GREED of the whole Medical Industry, like the rest of the world DOES, the Caprice of the Medical Industry will go on unabated!....:eyebrows:
That's not the incorrect point. It makes me wonder if you really understand the bill. Some people will be exempt from paying. I've 12 million and as high as 24 million. yet he and other claim all will be expected to pay.So,what's the truth then? How much do they need to spend and how much are the fines? How does the Medicaid rejection affect people who can't afford to buy? Since you said the above quote is false, can you tell us what is the truth then because I would want to know it as well.
Blackrock seemingly you miss the point that states no longer will have to expand their Medicaid rolls (sure they are supposed to but the Federal Government can't penalize them for not doing so, and many states have already said that as a financial decision they will not since they would loose money). Hence the subsidies for those making up to 130 percent of the poverty line will not in fact be there. However, the penalties for not having health insurance will be.
Now Congress could supply an alternative source of funding - but the money tree is having drought issues at present.
As a conceptual and legal idea single-payer may be best, but can the U.S. afford a Swiss, rather than a British system?
Now Congress could supply an alternative source of funding - but the money tree is having drought issues at present.
As a conceptual and legal idea single-payer may be best, but can the U.S. afford a Swiss, rather than a British system?
