Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

If It Has Obama's Name on It...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    I did not contradict myself in anything. You were called for distorting the facts when you said that "Obamacare took health insurance away from people. That is an objective fact" without revealing that the uninsured rate went down from 16% in 2010 to about 8% in 2016.

    So, I called the distortion of reality in the attempt to support dismantling Obamacare during a pandemic and during a period of high unemployment.


    So.
    I said nothing about the rate of uninsured, That is a different issue.
    Either you didn’t understand my point or you thought everyone was too ignorant to catch yours.

    Three to 5 million people lost their employment-based health insurance.
    Thirty million people never had company plans and relied on private health insurance. Insurance companies canceled many of their plans because their policies didn't cover the ACA's 10 essential benefits
    https://www.thebalance.com/obamacare...d-cons-3306059

    Oh wow, millions lost the health insurance they wanted. Even the dems didn’t try to lie about that, their argument was that the plans people “wanted” weren’t as good as the more expensive plans under Obamacare.

    People lost their insurance. A simple, objective fact.
    I’ll ignore the next attempt to change the subject.
    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



      So.
      I said nothing about the rate of uninsured, That is a different issue.
      Either you didn’t understand my point or you thought everyone was too ignorant to catch yours.

      Three to 5 million people lost their employment-based health insurance.
      Thirty million people never had company plans and relied on private health insurance. Insurance companies canceled many of their plans because their policies didn't cover the ACA's 10 essential benefits
      https://www.thebalance.com/obamacare...d-cons-3306059

      Oh wow, millions lost the health insurance they wanted. Even the dems didn’t try to lie about that, their argument was that the plans people “wanted” weren’t as good as the more expensive plans under Obamacare.

      People lost their insurance. A simple, objective fact.
      I’ll ignore the next attempt to change the subject.
      No, it is not a different issue.


      It IS part of the very relevant issue of presenting a honest picture of what Obamacare did when one tries to make an argument for abolishing Obamacare.

      I do not want to leave unchallenged stupid distortions that conservative sources usually make when they discuss Obamacare. I do not want to leave unchallenged the type of "death panel" stupid rhetoric we have heard in the past from the same people on the right who ironically now are the same people who have no problem with throwing elder people under the bus. So, whenever I hear such distortions of facts, I correct the record.

      And again, we are in a position where unemployment is high where we do not know how long it will last and we are in a country where health insurance is tied to work for many people and where even people who survived the infection are left with medical chronic problems. In those conditions, it is irresponsible to start talking about destroying Obamacare without replacement and without accurately representing the record of what Obamacare has achieved so far

      So, either we will have a discussion based on ALL relevant facts, or we should not have any discussion at all on this subject. Those who want to distort again the record to support their opinion about how bad is Obamacare should have the discussion with those who were arguing about the "death panels" in 2012!

      The fact that people wanted Obamacare was proven by the facts that right wing partisan hacks could not get rid off it even when they controlled both houses and the WH. Their fraud in their arguments about how bad Obama was had been exposed even to their constituent.

      I will not ignore any attempt to selectively present facts that distort reality. Lies by omission are still lies which hav no place in a serious conversation about a serious issue during a serious pandemic and economic crisis.
      Last edited by pamak; 26 Jun 20, 21:54.
      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • #18
        So pamak, since I know Massena will never answer me, tell me where in the Constitution the government has the right to force people to buy insurance. What part of the Constitution enables that and I might be willing to consider the possibility that O’Bamacare was legal, otherwise the Federal government broke the law by passing the law.
        Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Tsar View Post
          So pamak, since I know Massena will never answer me, tell me where in the Constitution the government has the right to force people to buy insurance. What part of the Constitution enables that and I might be willing to consider the possibility that O’Bamacare was legal, otherwise the Federal government broke the law by passing the law.
          The SCOTUS gave you the answer when it said that the insurance penalty can be treated as taxes. In any case, the point you raise now is irrelevant because the mandatory part of the Obamacare does notexibt anymore, and I am surprised that it seems like you are unaware of it. Then again, with the usual distortions in the rw media, it may not be that surprising. In any case , because it is no longer active, nobody can use this mandatory rule to justify an attempt to abolish the whole Obamacare...
          The veterans who get insurance that other are forced to subsidize should be among the last to criticize mandatory payments. And no , there is nothing in the constitution that days that the government has to provide healthcare to veterans.
          Last edited by pamak; 27 Jun 20, 02:31.
          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by pamak View Post

            The SCOTUS gave you the answer when it said that the insurance penalty can be treated as taxes.
            SCOTUS never ruled on the constitutionality of O’Bamacare. They ruled on if the “Penalty” was legal since congress can not levee a “Penalty” but can levee taxes, which is why the O’Bama administration suddenly changed it to a tax so that it would be legal. They did not however rule on whether the law itself was legal.
            I asked what part of the Constitution allowed the government to pass a law that required everyone to have to have insurance.

            Originally posted by pamak View Post
            In any case, the point you raise now is irrelevant because the mandatory part of the Obamacare does notexibt anymore, and I am surprised that it seems like you are unaware of it.
            I am well aware that the portion of an illegal law is no longer in effect. I celebrated that fact. It does not however remove that illegal law from the books. If, God forbid, there should ever again be a time when the socialist (sorry I mean Democrats) gain a super majority in both the house and senate as well as the presidency they could fix their mistake and reimpose that POS on us again.
            It is far better to have it established once and for all that it was illegal and end the threat of it happening again in the future.

            (the rest of your post was crap and I’m not going to lower myself to answer your attempted deflection)


            Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Tsar View Post

              SCOTUS never ruled on the constitutionality of O’Bamacare. They ruled on if the “Penalty” was legal since congress can not levee a “Penalty” but can levee taxes, which is why the O’Bama administration suddenly changed it to a tax so that it would be legal. They did not however rule on whether the law itself was legal.
              I asked what part of the Constitution allowed the government to pass a law that required everyone to have to have insurance.



              I am well aware that the portion of an illegal law is no longer in effect. I celebrated that fact. It does not however remove that illegal law from the books. If, God forbid, there should ever again be a time when the socialist (sorry I mean Democrats) gain a super majority in both the house and senate as well as the presidency they could fix their mistake and reimpose that POS on us again.
              It is far better to have it established once and for all that it was illegal and end the threat of it happening again in the future.

              (the rest of your post was crap and I’m not going to lower myself to answer your attempted deflection)

              SCOTUS ruled on the constitutionality of the penalty which is directly related to the issue of forcing people to buy insurance.

              And I asked in what part of the Constitution it says that I am forced to subsidize a veteran's insurance...

              If the part of the law that you THINK is illegal is not enforced why should the whole law be removed without replacement in this period when people need a safety net and when even survivors may have ruined lungs and join the ranks of those with preexisting conditions?

              How about removing a veteran's insurance who makes such claims because I think that it is illegal to subsidize their insurance or because those who are not concerned about others' problems and want to play politics behind the safety of their public and subsidized healthcare should not have their insurance subsidized by others?

              Last edited by pamak; 27 Jun 20, 12:34.
              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by pamak View Post

                SCOTUS ruled on the constitutionality of the penalty which is directly related to the issue of forcing people to buy insurance.
                Taxes are not illegal (now). So if the Socialist want to tax us they have a legal right to. Which is the only part of that crappy law that the SCOTUS ruled on. NOT if the law itself was legal. And even then the administration had to change its tune from it being a “Penalty” which would have been illegal to it being a tax which it could legally impose.

                Why can’t you answer that simple question, what part of the Constitution allows the government to require that you purchase something as a result of being a U.S. citizen?


                Originally posted by pamak View Post
                And I asked in what part of the Constitution it says that I am forced to subsidize a veteran's insurance...
                The 16th amendment which allows the government to levee taxes on income to be used as they see fit.

                Originally posted by pamak View Post
                If the part of the law that you THINK is illegal is not enforced why should the whole law be removed without replacement in this period when people need a safety net and when even survivors may have ruined lungs and join the ranks of those with preexisting conditions?
                Any law that requires us to purchase something as a result of being U.S. citizens will have to be shown to be valid in the Constitution. If there is nothing that says that I have to purchase a thing because I am a U.S. citizen that I should not have to purchase it. So tell me what part of the Constitution allows the government to require that.

                Any “replacement” will have to be a voluntary option which we know won’t work. So the government will once again try to force us to buy insurance if we like it or not.

                Originally posted by pamak View Post
                How about removing a veteran's insurance who makes such claims because I think that it is illegal to subsidize their insurance or because those who are not concerned about others' problems and want to play politics behind the safety of their public and subsidized healthcare should not have their insurance subsidized by others?
                Read the Constitution, particularly the 16th amendment. It allows the government to levee taxes.

                Now if you were required to purchase that vet’s insurance directly you might have an argument but since you are only paying taxes which is legal under the Constitution you’re SOL.

                Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Tsar View Post

                  Taxes are not illegal (now). So if the Socialist want to tax us they have a legal right to. Which is the only part of that crappy law that the SCOTUS ruled on. NOT if the law itself was legal. And even then the administration had to change its tune from it being a “Penalty” which would have been illegal to it being a tax which it could legally impose.

                  Why can’t you answer that simple question, what part of the Constitution allows the government to require that you purchase something as a result of being a U.S. citizen?




                  The 16th amendment which allows the government to levee taxes on income to be used as they see fit.



                  Any law that requires us to purchase something as a result of being U.S. citizens will have to be shown to be valid in the Constitution. If there is nothing that says that I have to purchase a thing because I am a U.S. citizen that I should not have to purchase it. So tell me what part of the Constitution allows the government to require that.

                  Any “replacement” will have to be a voluntary option which we know won’t work. So the government will once again try to force us to buy insurance if we like it or not.



                  Read the Constitution, particularly the 16th amendment. It allows the government to levee taxes.

                  Now if you were required to purchase that vet’s insurance directly you might have an argument but since you are only paying taxes which is legal under the Constitution you’re SOL.
                  They ruled on the part that was challenged as being unconstitutional. And the one thing that was challenged was the penalty of having insurance. because that was the only thing that could be challenged. You really underestimate those who tried to legally challenge Obamacare if you think that they made some mistake that challenged only a particular part of the Obamacare.

                  Sorry, but no amendment says that the Congress must use tax to subside veteran insurance. It is a choice. And I am required to subsidize that insurance including the lifetime veteran benefits of people with just two years in active duty who were not even injured during their service. I think regular Obamcare type insurance for citizens should e tied in some way to veteran benefits so that some veterans do not become detached from reality and have a skin in the game instead of sitting behind the safety of their benefits opposing government measures that try to provide better access to healthcare for other citizens.

                  The law does not force you to buy anything. You can still choose not to buy insurance and accept the penalty (under the old Obamacare). And that penalty is constitutional. And right now, you do not even have to pay any penalty.

                  And words about a "crappy law" which as I showed reduced the uninsured rate from 16% to 8% must come from the mouth of privileged insured people who cannot appreciate how Obamacare positively affected the insurance of many Americans, including middle class Americans who could do things such as keep their children insured even if they 26 year old.
                  Last edited by pamak; 28 Jun 20, 14:38.
                  My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by pamak View Post
                    Sorry, but no amendment says that the Congress must use tax to subside veteran insurance. It is a choice. And I am required to subsidize that insurance including the lifetime veteran benefits of people with just two years in active duty who were not even injured during their service. I think regular Obamcare type insurance for citizens should e tied in some way to veteran benefits so that some veterans do not become detached from reality and have a skin in the game instead of sitting behind the safety of their benefits opposing government measures that try to provide better access to healthcare for other citizens.
                    Using your limited logic no amendment says that we must pay for welfare either so let’s end that drain on the budget.


                    Originally posted by pamak View Post
                    The law does not force you to buy anything. You can still choose not to buy insurance and accept the penalty (under the old Obamacare). And that penalty is constitutional. And right now, you do not even have to pay any penalty.
                    No the “Penalty” was not Constitutional the tax that the O’Bama administration changed it into when confronted in court (since they knew it wouldn’t be legal) was ruled legal.


                    Originally posted by pamak View Post
                    And words about a "crappy law" which as I showed reduced the uninsured rate from 16% to 8% must come from the mouth of privileged insured people who cannot appreciate how Obamacare positively affected the insurance of many Americans, including middle class Americans who could do things such as keep their children insured even if they 26 year old.
                    Funny I don’t remember any insurance company refusing to take a premium that was paid by the parents for the children at any age. If the parents want to pay the premium for their kids to age 90 the insurance company will be happy to accept it. so that argument is also crap.

                    Now how about you answer the question I asked you.
                    WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE US TO PURCHASE SOMETHING AS A RESULT OF BEING U.S. CITIZENS.
                    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Tsar View Post

                      Using your limited logic no amendment says that we must pay for welfare either so let’s end that drain on the budget.




                      No the “Penalty” was not Constitutional the tax that the O’Bama administration changed it into when confronted in court (since they knew it wouldn’t be legal) was ruled legal.




                      Funny I don’t remember any insurance company refusing to take a premium that was paid by the parents for the children at any age. If the parents want to pay the premium for their kids to age 90 the insurance company will be happy to accept it. so that argument is also crap.

                      Now how about you answer the question I asked you.
                      WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE US TO PURCHASE SOMETHING AS A RESULT OF BEING U.S. CITIZENS.
                      My logic is fine, and indeed, one can change laws in the US regarding welfare as your side tries to do now.

                      The same can happen with veteran benefits, especially with those who get life-term benefits based on a very short active service during which they were not even injured. Perhaps then the veteran will agree to an amendment to have certain things like health insurance as constitutional rights

                      The penalty for not buying insurance was deemed constitutional and that was the end of the challenge with the original Obamacare. The idea that conservatives chose just one thing to challenge and somehow forgot to challenge other parts of the Obamacare does not hold water. If they chose one thing to challenge was because that was the only thing they could argue that it was unconstitutional with some chances to succeed.


                      The fact that a parent has the option to pay additional insurance for his adult kids does not change the fact that Obamacare made it more affordable to have insurance for kids up until 26 years old.

                      AGAIN, I answered the question: The Obamacare CANNOT FORCE YOU BUY ANY INSURANCE. You can choose to stay uninsured and accept the penalty (tax) for such choice. So, your question is detached from reality.

                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        What set up Obamacare for failure?????

                        Simple, he was counting on the 18 to 30 year olds to buy insurance. If they didn't buy insurance, they would pay a penalty or tax.

                        At the same time the 18 to 26 year olds could stay on thier parents policies. The money taken in with the 'tax' would not be enough to cover the revenue of the 27 to 30 year olds.

                        Then take into account the numerous requirements for coverage; birth control, abortions, and so on......the federal government was already paying planned parenthood, there was no need to put those services into obamacare.
                        "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by pamak View Post
                          The penalty for not buying insurance was deemed constitutional and that was the end of the challenge with the original Obamacare.
                          The “Penalty” was not deemed Constitutional since O’Bama’s legal team changed it to a tax when confronted by a law suit knowing full well that any attempt to justify it as a “Penalty” would result in a defeat.

                          Originally posted by pamak View Post
                          AGAIN, I answered the question: The Obamacare CANNOT FORCE YOU BUY ANY INSURANCE. You can choose to stay uninsured and accept the penalty (tax) for such choice. So, your question is detached from reality.
                          All right then let me rephrase the question to be more precise. Where in the Constitution does it give the government the right to require an individual citizen to purchase anything or be penalized for not doing so.

                          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                            What set up Obamacare for failure?????
                            The rejection of the citizenry to being ordered to purchase crappy insurance under penalty of law.
                            Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Tsar View Post
                              All right then let me rephrase the question to be more precise. Where in the Constitution does it give the government the right to require an individual citizen to purchase anything or be penalized for not doing so.
                              That I don't know - but mandatory insurance is quite common, car insurance or fire insurance to name just 2 obvious ones.

                              There too you will be penalized if you lack them, and rightly so.

                              Lambert of Montaigu - Crusader.

                              Bolgios - Mercenary Game.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Tsar View Post
                                WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT GIVE THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE US TO PURCHASE SOMETHING AS A RESULT OF BEING U.S. CITIZENS.
                                If I recall correctly, the issue went before the Supreme Court with the continued arguments over Obamacare and it was ruled a tax.

                                Drivers' licenses, weapons' licenses, taxes (federal, state, and local) are all required by the government and are in line with the US Constitution. Article I of that document applies.

                                We are not now that strength which in old days
                                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X