ObamaCare repeal FAIL

Bfgrn said:
Most people will never notice the mandate, as they get insurance through their employer and that's good enough for the government. But of those who aren't exempt and aren't insured, the choice will be this: Purchase insurance or pay a small fine. In 2016, the first year the fine is fully in place, it will be $695 a year or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is higher. That makes the mandate progressive.
Click to expand...

You're a fool!
 
Bfgrn said:
And what happens if you don't buy insurance and you don't pay the penalty? Well, not much. The law specifically says that no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who don't pay the fine. If this actually leads to a world in which large numbers of people don't buy insurance and tell the IRS to stuff it, you could see that change. But for now, the penalties are low and the enforcement is non-existent.
Click to expand...

And an idiot!
 
Bfgrn said:
The theory behind the mandate is simple: It's there to protect against an insurance death spiral. Now that insurers can't discriminate based on preexisting conditions, it would be entirely possible for people to forgo insurance until, well, they develop a medical condition. In that world, the bulk of the people buying insurance on the exchanges are sick, and that makes the average premiums terrifically expensive. The mandate is there to bring healthy people into the pool, which keeps average costs down and also ensures that people aren't riding free on the system by letting society pay when they get hit by a bus.
Click to expand...

I have another theory!
 
Bfgrn said:
The irony of the mandate is that it's been presented as a terribly onerous tax on decent, hardworking people who don't want to purchase insurance. In reality, it's the best deal in the bill: A cynical consumer would be smart to pay the modest penalty rather than pay thousands of dollars a year for insurance. In the current system, that's a bad idea because insurers won't let them buy insurance if they get sick later. In the reformed system, there's no consequence for that behavior. You could pay the penalty for five years and then buy insurance the day you felt a lump.
Click to expand...

You remind me of Hollywoods version of a heroin addict.

The current system is a result of Marxism.
 
Bfgrn said:
Luckily, consumers aren't usually that cynical, and the experience of places such as Massachusetts suggests that individual mandates encourage people to buy insurance even when it might make sense for people to simply pay the penalty. But for all the furor over the individual mandate, the danger in the bill is much more that it is too weak and too good a deal than that it is too strong and too punitive a tax.
Washington Post

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Click to expand...

You're a Marxist Bfgrn.

You represent bondage. Pro slavery!
 
Chapdog said:
This makes little sense to me. If you falsify on your tax return that you had insurance so as to avoid the penalty (of less tax return / or more taxes owed) you could be prosecuted under the existing tax laws which include jail time.
Click to expand...

that portion of the law is to not take effect until 2014, so the point is moot until then
 
Chapdog said:
This makes little sense to me. If you falsify on your tax return that you had insurance so as to avoid the penalty (of less tax return / or more taxes owed) you could be prosecuted under the existing tax laws which include jail time.
Click to expand...

Notice that Bfgrn hasn't replied to your comment.

He's saying that if we live by a contract and he or another with his same mind chooses to break that contract,,,,,,, that's alright. As long as he's the one breaking the contract.
 
FuzzyBunny said:
I'll give you links, but I don't want to hear you whine.

District Court Upholds Individual Mandate Against Challenge Filed by Liberty University

Michigan District Court Upholds Individual Mandate Against Challenge by the Thomas More Law Center

Mandate Challenge Could Prevail

there is about 50 more give or take. It you would like them all, I'd be more than happy to fulfill your wishes.

Has it occurred to you that the Supreme Court doesn't have to hear the Case. By refusing to hear the case the Prior ruling stands.
Click to expand...

the circuit courts have to weigh in first, then scotus if the circuit courts disagree or even if they agree and somebody does not like their rulings
 
Last edited:
Liberty said:
Notice that Bfgrn hasn't replied to your comment.

He's saying that if we live by a contract and he or another with his same mind chooses to break that contract,,,,,,, that's alright. As long as he's the one breaking the contract.
Click to expand...

Hey Lib, what part of 'If you falsify on your tax return' do you expect to be excused for? I guess the law only applies to liberals. You folks on the right believe in 'personal responsibility'...for OTHERS.
 
Bfgrn said:
Health care is a right. It is written in Jefferson's words. Life itself is not possible without your health. We all have a right to affordable heath care and competent treatment. The bill that was passed, all these contortions, waste of time and money are caused by the 800 lb elephant in the room. Health care is NOT and never will be best handled by a market based system. The incentives of the insured and the incentives of the insurer are in direct conflict. And unlike being stuck with a bad car, TV or appliance, the insured's stake in the transaction is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...

Exactly!! The preamble states the purpose, the raison d'être, for the Constitution, for the government, for the newly founded country.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The ill individual is denied all those things and when a solution is available and not given the government has neglected it's primary duty.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Bfgrn said:
You can continue the bluster, but the reality is; the law will proceed, there will be appeals filed, and it will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

Vacuous rhetoric? I'd like to believe you are right, and I am wrong. But my experience, instincts and the rhetoric I continually and consistently hear from conservatives tell me I am right on. I have become more suspect of conservatives, not less over the years.

Whenever the subject turns to the Constitution, conservatives try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead. Your op-ed uses the absurd and polarized argument to wield the Constitution as that weapon. It is always an inflated and dire fear, a negative of a right and a slippery slope.

What is liberty? To me it is freedom to do whatever I want, in the boundaries of the rights and liberties of others. It is not a sanction to harm or deprive others, or to use deception that steals from my fellow man. So liberty is both personal and it is communal, a self respect and a common respect for others. And a respect for the 'commons', the air, water, fish, fowl and soil that we all share.

'Liberty' is a key word in the seminal phrase that America was founded on. It is stated in the most clear and unmistakable statement of the intent, mission and whole of what our founder's intended their government to be. It is the pretext to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that followed later. Thomas Jefferson said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Those words in the Declaration of Independence not only are pretext to the Constitution, they are the standard and measuring stick all government action is judged on.

Health care is a right. It is written in Jefferson's words. Life itself is not possible without your health. We all have a right to affordable heath care and competent treatment. The bill that was passed, all these contortions, waste of time and money are caused by the 800 lb elephant in the room. Health care is NOT and never will be best handled by a market based system. The incentives of the insured and the incentives of the insurer are in direct conflict. And unlike being stuck with a bad car, TV or appliance, the insured's stake in the transaction is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

BTW, your Jefferson quote are powerful words. I suggest you find out what the context of those words are. Our founders were human, it is not unusual for even a founding father to use hyperbole to make an argument.

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29
Click to expand...
 
Bfgrn said:
What is liberty? To me it is freedom to do whatever I want, in the boundaries of the rights and liberties of others. It is not a sanction to harm or deprive others, or to use deception that steals from my fellow man. So liberty is both personal and it is communal, a self respect and a common respect for others. And a respect for the 'commons', the air, water, fish, fowl and soil that we all share.

'Liberty' is a key word in the seminal phrase that America was founded on. It is stated in the most clear and unmistakable statement of the intent, mission and whole of what our founder's intended their government to be. It is the pretext to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that followed later. Thomas Jefferson said:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Those words in the Declaration of Independence not only are pretext to the Constitution, they are the standard and measuring stick all government action is judged on.

Health care is a right. It is written in Jefferson's words. Life itself is not possible without your health. We all have a right to affordable health care and competent treatment. The bill that was passed, all these contortions, waste of time and money are caused by the 800 lb elephant in the room. Health care is NOT and never will be best handled by a market based system. The incentives of the insured and the incentives of the insurer are in direct conflict. And unlike being stuck with a bad car, TV or appliance, the insured's stake in the transaction is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...

You had me humming the Star spangled Banner in my head right up to “Healthcare is a Right”. Please tell me you’re not supplanting the Federal Government into the Role of the Creator. Because the Creator didn’t provide us with Free healthcare so there was no free Healthcare to governments to secure. You’re not the first one to try and use the Pretext as some sort of Power granting clause. You would think if Jefferson thought Healthcare was a Right, They’d had put it in the BILL of RIGHTS. Clearly an oversight on their part

Mostly I am struck with the obvious conflict of your definition of Liberty. Mostly “It is not a sanction to harm or deprive others” To provide Healthcare as a Right, you HAVE TO deprive people of their liberty in order to provide Healthcare to people. Yet the Pretext of the constitution says that Government was created to secure LIFE, LIBERTY and the Pursuit of Happiness. Yet somehow you’re advocating depriving people of those every things. Liberty is in direct conflict of Government. It always is. How does this square with you on a ideological level.
 
apple0154 said:
Exactly!! The preamble states the purpose, the raison d'être, for the Constitution, for the government, for the newly founded country.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The ill individual is denied all those things and when a solution is available and not given the government has neglected it's primary duty.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...
By your definition.
The Sick should have Healthcare
The Homeless should have Homes
The Hungry should have food
The Poor Should be have money
The Weak should have protection
The affronted should have justice
The Stoned should have Drugs

All done by Depriving others of thier Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness
 
apple0154 said:
Exactly!! The preamble states the purpose, the raison d'être, for the Constitution, for the government, for the newly founded country.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The ill individual is denied all those things and when a solution is available and not given the government has neglected it's primary duty.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...

You need to reread and rethink your agenda.
We are guaranteed the right to PURSUE happiness.
The ATTAINMENT of it, is our personal responsibility.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You need to reread and rethink your agenda.
We are guaranteed the right to PURSUE happiness.
The ATTAINMENT of it, is our personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

Just to add to that:

We have a right to our life. For no other reason than we are alive.

We have a right to sustain our lives with as little restriction as possible. For no other reason than we are alive, and have to sustain our lives to keep living. Governments job is to get out of the way on the one hand, and on the other hand it's supose to defend us from restriction. Not to make laws that resrict us.

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.:awesome:

My property really represents my true pursuit of happiness. The socialists want to take away my rights and trust government with them. Which always results in slavery to some degree.
 
Last edited:
FuzzyBunny said:
You had me humming the Star spangled Banner in my head right up to “Healthcare is a Right”. Please tell me you’re not supplanting the Federal Government into the Role of the Creator. Because the Creator didn’t provide us with Free healthcare so there was no free Healthcare to governments to secure. You’re not the first one to try and use the Pretext as some sort of Power granting clause. You would think if Jefferson thought Healthcare was a Right, They’d had put it in the BILL of RIGHTS. Clearly an oversight on their part

Mostly I am struck with the obvious conflict of your definition of Liberty. Mostly “It is not a sanction to harm or deprive others” To provide Healthcare as a Right, you HAVE TO deprive people of their liberty in order to provide Healthcare to people. Yet the Pretext of the constitution says that Government was created to secure LIFE, LIBERTY and the Pursuit of Happiness. Yet somehow you’re advocating depriving people of those every things. Liberty is in direct conflict of Government. It always is. How does this square with you on a ideological level.
Click to expand...

Your logic fails. It is because your right wing dogma and ideology overrides logic, common sense and justice.

Jefferson said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And what was Jefferson's best vehicle to secure those rights?

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

But you say that: "Liberty is in direct conflict of Government. It always is"

That is letting some right wing mantra override logic my friend.

If a gang of thugs are beating the stuffing out of you, when a cop (government agent) shows up to save your ass, he is in conflict with liberty?

The 'liberty' of the thugs to beat you to death?
 
Bfgrn said:
Your logic fails. It is because your right wing dogma and ideology overrides logic, common sense and justice.
Click to expand...
Yada yada yada... sing a different tune

Jefferson said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...
You can post that section a 1000 times, Still doesn't say anything about free healthcare.

But you say that: "Liberty is in direct conflict of Government. It always is"

That is letting some right wing mantra override logic my friend.

If a gang of thugs are beating the stuffing out of you, when a cop (government agent) shows up to save your ass, he is in conflict with liberty?

The 'liberty' of the thugs to beat you to death?
Click to expand...
Your one of those people that can't distinguish between state and federal government, Because nobody from the Federal police force would ever show up to save my ass. I always find it depressing for the educational system when people confuse State government with Federal government while trying to make a Federal argument. Try another analogy but this time try making it relevant. Please try not to insult me while you’re writing something completely wrong. Insult me if I’m wrong sure… but not when you’re wrong.
 
To libtards, any money you have above what they have is to be income to the state to fund their right to anything they want. It's only fair!
 
FuzzyBunny said:
Yada yada yada... sing a different tune


You can post that section a 1000 times, Still doesn't say anything about free healthcare.


Your one of those people that can't distinguish between state and federal government, Because nobody from the Federal police force would ever show up to save my ass. I always find it depressing for the educational system when people confuse State government with Federal government while trying to make a Federal argument. Try another analogy but this time try making it relevant. Please try not to insult me while you’re writing something completely wrong. Insult me if I’m wrong sure… but not when you’re wrong.
Click to expand...

Completely wrong? Nice try, but Jefferson didn't say:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, FEDERAL governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

SO...state government can require you to buy health insurance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top