Obama care stands

[Road America]

Reasonable people can discuss things without name calling. No one answered my questions - like what exactly is it about requiring people to buy health insurance or pay a tax/penalty that makes it a liberal idea? Government run health coverage like every other industrialized country has would seem more "liberal".
If Obama said he liked apple pie I think every Republican would say apples are a comunist plot.
You might think I'm a democrat or "liberal' - I'm not. I agree with Replublicans on some issues and Democrates on others, and mostly think they all are scoundrels only interested in preserving their jobs and doing their damnest to make the other side look bad.
Learning what this law does and doesn't do would make a lot more sense than punching all the liberals in the nose!

[raven818]

Originally Posted by Road America

Learning what this law does and doesn't do would make a lot more sense than punching all the liberals in the nose!

http://www.thefirearmsforum.com/showthread.php?t=109410
There ya go.

[Double D]

Liberals are liberals no matter what the law or bill. SOS, different day. There will never, ever, ever ,ever, ever, ever, ever, be a chance of reasoning with them. Not possible, wont happen, cant happen, no chance, waste of time, effort, and breath.

[Bobitis]

Originally Posted by Road America

Reasonable people can discuss things without name calling. No one answered my questions - like what exactly is it about requiring people to buy health insurance or pay a tax/penalty that makes it a liberal idea? Government run health coverage like every other industrialized country has would seem more "liberal".
If Obama said he liked apple pie I think every Republican would say apples are a comunist plot.
You might think I'm a democrat or "liberal' - I'm not. I agree with Replublicans on some issues and Democrates on others, and mostly think they all are scoundrels only interested in preserving their jobs and doing their damnest to make the other side look bad.
Learning what this law does and doesn't do would make a lot more sense than punching all the liberals in the nose!

I don't care what side of the aisle yer on or if yer in the middle.
Have you read the bill? It doesn't sound like it. I haven't either. Fair enough.

From what I HAVE read, this is the most far reaching invasion of privacy that our nation has ever been subject to. As it turns out, it is also the most Constitutionally destructive. We the people no longer have a say in the extent of our ability to be taxed. It is now endless.

This bill was written by the members of congress when the democrats (liberals) had full control over both houses. NONE of them read it! NONE of them had a clue other than it was something they concocted. As the then Speaker of the House said, "We won't know what's in the bill until we pass it".

Can I trash those that passed this abomination?

You bet I can. For now anyway.

ps. I hold anyone that supported this bill on the same level regardless of party affiliation. How many liberals voted against it?

[Road America]

Thanks, that's a start.
When you say the average family of four making 18k would have to pay 2100 - doesn't that mean only if they don't have insurance through work? 2100 for a year of health insurance isn't unreasonable is it?
Like you, I'm retired on Medicare and have supplemental insurance.

[Appliancedude]

I'm so glad I missed this thread yesterday. When you Former Guest them, does it block future attempts. IE block their IP address?

[Bobitis]

Originally Posted by Road America

Thanks, that's a start.
When you say the average family of four making 18k would have to pay 2100 - doesn't that mean only if they don't have insurance through work? 2100 for a year of health insurance isn't unreasonable is it?
Like you, I'm retired on Medicare and have supplemental insurance.

I never stated anything you attribute to me. Do you just make up stuff as you go?

I find that highly offensive!

You can't speak for me, you don't even know my language.

Sorry Dan.

[whymememe]

Who was that guy?

[raven818]

Originally Posted by Appliancedude

I'm so glad I missed this thread yesterday. When you Former Guest them, does it block future attempts. IE block their IP address?

I can't say for certain how it's done here, but we have two here that troll full time. IMO, one of them was tossed a couple weeks ago. I had a lengthy post that made it clear I knew who he was from his use of words, paragraph structure, punctuation, view points, etc.. He addressed part of my post, but left that part alone.

Depending on how it's set up, the software 'could' block an entire IP range and the result would stop everybody from..say..192.xxx.x.x from being able to log-on. To block an individual IP, you'd have to block their individual address ( 192.168.x.x ). It also depends on whether the user has a Static IP, or a Dynamic IP. A user with a Dynamic IP, in most cases, has a different IP address every time they log on. Some ISP's only change it for some kind of reason that sounds logical. Some won't do it at all.

They're very capable here, and quick to end volatile issues. That's a good thing.

[Appliancedude]

Originally Posted by raven818

I can't say for certain how it's done here, but we have two here that troll full time. IMO, one of them was tossed a couple weeks ago. I had a lengthy post that made it clear I knew who he was from his use of words, paragraph structure, punctuation, view points, etc.. He addressed part of my post, but left that part alone.

Depending on how it's set up, the software 'could' block an entire IP range and the result would stop everybody from..say..192.xxx.x.x from being able to log-on. To block an individual IP, you'd have to block their individual address ( 192.168.x.x ). It also depends on whether the user has a Static IP, or a Dynamic IP. A user with a Dynamic IP, in most cases, has a different IP address every time they log on. Some ISP's only change it for some kind of reason that sounds logical. Some won't do it at all.

They're very capable here, and quick to end volatile issues. That's a good thing.

I hate Trolls Glad he's gone

[mranum]

Do things need to change to our health system to make it more affordable to everyone? You bet, but this monstrosity should never have seen the light of day. There is so much bs in it that has nothing to do with health care but instead its design is to control the masses. Individual freedom and individual accountability is dead.

One thing that still bothers me is, what does establishing The Ready Reserve have to do with affordable health care? Its in the bill that was signed into law.

[Gun Geezer]

Originally Posted by jlloyd73

Are you serious? You need to do your research concerning so called government provided healthcare (which this boils down to). Tens of thousands of people in European countries die due to all the red tape caused by their governments. It isn't my responsibility to pay for other people's healthcare and get taxed to death in the process. Many of these people that cannot afford healthcare can't because of their lifestyles and their choices. It isn't my responsibility to babysit them. We have welfare/medicaid for people that cannot afford insurance. That system could cover everyone if the government would fix it. As for you......................THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR TYPE.......don't tell me what to do, you can take your ignorant @#$ and crawl back under your rock.

This pretty well sums it up! "Move along, there is nothing to see here!"

[Deputy Dawg]

Originally Posted by RustyFN

What I find funny is all the people that voted for Obammer that I work with are real quite about who they voted for now and some even deny it now. I bet they vote for him again too.

Once an Idiot allways an Idiot, some sheeple never learn until it is too late.

[LyleLovett666]

By Kate Kick @ townhall.com

Over, and over, and over, President Obama assured us that this was not a tax. He was not raising taxes on the middle class (that’s what the Republicans were doing, remember?). Nope, . . you raised our taxes [and on the people who can’t afford it. You did it on the backs of the poor.] Politically, that’s going to prove troublesome for Obama this fall, and in a much more substantial way than having his “signature legislative accomplishment” overturned altogether.
For one, Roberts took away Obama’s ability to campaign against the Court. They upheld his law; he can’t do as he did after Citizens United and construe the ACA ruling as a massively political attack on the little guy and his uninsured plight. He has nothing to blame on the Justices. All they did was recharacterize the “penalty” as constitutional under the taxing power. Roberts robbed Obama of a scapegoat, and stuck Obama with an unpopular law in an election year. Ouch.
Second, Roberts has literally forced Obama to acknowledge that he broke a promise, and raised taxes. And tax increases don’t resonate well with the voters. Now, it’s doubtful Obama will assume responsibility for raising taxes – note that in his speech today, he didn’t acknowledge the Court’s reasoning for the ruling, only that they ruled in his favor. But the GOP has just added a major weapon to its arsenal: want to lower taxes? Then don’t reelect Obama.
This third observation is one that isn’t immediately evident, but nonetheless just as important as those prior two, if not more so. Roberts has made it substantially easier to repeal Obamacare and substantially harder to pass anything like it in the future. As noted above, Americans don’t like taxes. And thanks to the fact that many will opt to pay the tax rather than buy insurance (as that will cost less), the insurance problem in this country hasn’t been solved. The fact that we’ve settled the question of the mandate’s constitutionality means we can turn to the rest of the law, and address the flaws contained therein, and perhaps find a real solution to the healthcare crisis. As for future laws, Democrats lost the ability to hide behind “penalty” language. Roberts saw that the mandate waddled and quacked, and gave it the appropriate name. (He also forbade Congress from actually “mandating” anything, so that name isn’t even correct anymore.) The ACA barely passed the first time; future iterations of this theory are destined to fail, because Congress will have to stand up and say, “We propose to enact a new tax so as to influence your behavior.” If that isn’t the proverbial lead balloon, I don’t know what is.
So there you have it: it’s really not all bad. It’s not what we wanted, but then – as I suspect Obama will learn in the coming months – we must remember to be careful what we wish for.

[Bobitis]

'Roberts has made it substantially easier to repeal Obamacare and substantially harder to pass anything like it in the future'.


And in the mean time, Roberts made it easier to tax the people to death without any redress.

The man is a traitor. He made the Constitution a roll of toilet tissue.

Call it what you want, but this ruling has insured our demise as a free people.

We've been epically boned.

[jedwil]

Originally Posted by Bobitis

'Roberts has made it substantially easier to repeal Obamacare and substantially harder to pass anything like it in the future'.


And in the mean time, Roberts made it easier to tax the people to death without any redress.

The man is a traitor. He made the Constitution a roll of toilet tissue.

Call it what you want, but this ruling has insured our demise as a free people.

We've been epically boned.

We, as a people, will be taxed as much as WE allow. This decision puts it back on us, as voters, to get rid of this albatross and others in the future. Seems a lot of folks are saying that the ruling reigns in the commerce clause, which would be a good thing, IMO.