If This Case Was A Horse-race It Would Be A Walkover

F

Flanders

Verified User
HEALTH CARE CHALLENGE

One of the biggest outstanding cases involves the Affordable Care Act.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that it was constitutional, but this is a new challenge.

This challenge was brought by conservatives who believe the last ruling was only ruled constitutional because the Supreme Court interpreted the law as a tax.

Congress has since removed tax penalties from the law and therefore critics believe justices now have grounds to strike down the entire law.

Constitutional experts have argued this stands little chance of taking place, however the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett has left some wondering: "just how conservative has the Court become?"
​


Supreme Court has key rulings in the coming weeks; includes voting rights, health care
By: Joe St. George
Posted at 3:57 PM, May 07, 2021
and last updated 4:04 PM, May 07, 2021

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news...ming-weeks-includes-voting-rights-health-care
​


walkover (noun)

1. Sports. a. An easy or uncontested win in a competition. b. A horserace with only one horse entered, won by the mere formality of walking the length of the track.

2. A walkaway. See synonyms at breeze.
​

On the bright side, makers might quote odds for a few horse degenerates willing to bet the horse will fall down and drop dead before he passes the finish line. I do not see that happening to five justices:


Finally, defenders of the U.S. Constitution on the High Court will never rule against dirty little moralists stuffing themselves with income tax dollars:

Supreme Court justices are creatures of the federal government; so predicting the outcome of Supreme Court cases involving tax dollars, and/or Wall Street’s income, is a walk in the park. No Supreme Court will ever decide to reduce or eliminate federal government revenues. In short: Repealing the ACA did not stand a chance when it got to the High Court.

Repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was a snap for most Americans BEFORE Chief Justice John Roberts said it was a constitutional tax.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...2t-What-They-Used-To-Be&p=2761678#post2761678
 
The Affordable Care Act is only slightly better than nothing, and Medicare for All is only slightly better than that.

What we need is a National Health Service, identical to the United Kingdom's.

NHS is the standard for the entire world.

We're no better than second rate until we have it, and eventually we will.
As usual, however, we'll be one of the last to have it.
The USA is a socially regressive nation and has been since its inception..
 
Legion said:
Who told you that?
Click to expand...

There are 32 countries with national health care system - including all of the major first-world powers in Northern, Southern, and Western Europe. To the best of my knowledge, none of these countries have government factions advocating for a switch to the U.S. healthcare model.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
What we need is a National Health Service, identical to the United Kingdom's.
Click to expand...

To NiftyNiblick: Pay attention to the facts about the U. K.’s system in this thread:

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Pinocchio-For-President&p=2968450#post2968450

NiftyNiblick said:
NHS is the standard for the entire world.
Click to expand...

To NiftyNiblick: The entire COMMUNIST world.


Djinn said:
To the best of my knowledge, none of these countries have government factions advocating for a switch to the U.S. healthcare model.
Click to expand...

To Djinn: Socialist/Communist governments do not allow enslaved people to vote on major policy issues. Had the American people been given the vote there would be no Affordable Care Act. Even now a vast majority of Americans want the entire ACA repealed, while the Parasite Class is fighting tooth and nail to hang onto the gains they got from lie on top of lie.


 
The idiot Flanders, aka Poppies, quotes one of his own posts to "prove" a point.
These JPP mutants are really special...needs.
 
Djinn said:
There are 32 countries with national health care system - including all of the major first-world powers in Northern, Southern, and Western Europe. To the best of my knowledge, none of these countries have government factions advocating for a switch to the U.S. healthcare model.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you, and you failed to answer the question I asked the other poster.
 
Look! What is all the fuss about?

The Affordable Care Act is an option for people. It gives people access to healthcare that were denied before it came about.

You can have conventional for-profit Healthcare Insurance if you qualify for it, or fortunate enough to have it as an option.

OR, if you don't have that same fortune or choice- THE ACA is available to you. IT STILL COSTS MONEY AND IT IS NOT FREE.

The ACA was never intended by anyone to replace For-Profit Healthcare Insurance.

So what is the fuss about?
 
Djinn said:
Does "Brexit" ring a bell?
Click to expand...

To Djinn: Brexit was an anomaly.


anomalies.png

https://thesaurus.plus/img/synonyms/105/anomalies.png
​

The EU, the U.N. and limey Commies could not stop it as hard as they tried.

Geeko Sportivo said:
Look! What is all the fuss about?

The Affordable Care Act is an option for people. It gives people access to healthcare that were denied before it came about.

You can have conventional for-profit Healthcare Insurance if you qualify for it, or fortunate enough to have it as an option.

OR, if you don't have that same fortune or choice- THE ACA is available to you. IT STILL COSTS MONEY AND IT IS NOT FREE.

The ACA was never intended by anyone to replace For-Profit Healthcare Insurance.

So what is the fuss about?
Click to expand...

To Geeko Sportivo: Nobody was forced to pay for the healthcare of strangers before the ACA was crammed down the public’s throat —— not to mention all of the other stuff that is buried in the ACA.

Note that the lying sack of shit did not pay for his illegal aunt’s healthcare before she passed away:


 
Flanders said:
To Djinn: Brexit was an anomaly.

The EU, the U.N. and limey Commies could not stop it as hard as they tried.



To Geeko Sportivo: Nobody was forced to pay for the healthcare of strangers before the ACA was crammed down the public’s throat —— not to mention all of the other stuff that is buried in the ACA.

Note that the lying sack of shit did not pay for his illegal aunt’s healthcare before she passed away:
Click to expand...

No one is making you pay for anything but your fair share of taxes!

I don't see what this woman claiming to be Obama's aunt has to do with anything.
 
Flanders said:
The EU, the U.N. and limey Commies could not stop it as hard as they tried.
Click to expand...
How hard did those 32 modernized countries fight the transition to a nationalized health system? Can you cite evidence suggesting that they were implemented despite the overwhelming objections of the people?

And why are none of them fighting to repeal their nationalized health systems, an adopt one modeled after the U.S. health care system?
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
When the Republican led Congress passed Donald Trump's FANTASY Tax Plan!
Click to expand...

To Geeko Sportivo: Asshole. Parasites created ‘fair share’ decades before Trump went into politics.

And for your information you dumb bastard, ‘fair share’ was invented by Socialist scum in the federal government to justify the income tax in 1913. In short: There was no tax on income for more than a century when Americans were the freest people the world had ever seen. Those liberty-loving Americans also built the greatest nation and culture the world had ever seen. 'Fair share' misdirection is the weapon parasites cite in order to tear down everything they fear.
 
Djinn said:
There are 32 countries with national health care system - including all of the major first-world powers in Northern, Southern, and Western Europe. To the best of my knowledge, none of these countries have government factions advocating for a switch to the U.S. healthcare model.
Click to expand...
They can afford it because they don't waste billions on the military
 
Althea said:
They can afford it because they don't waste billions on the military
Click to expand...

A valid point. Most of those who gripe about Biden's $2 trillion infrastructure plan fail to recognize that the cost is less than a third of our annual military budget.
 
Althea said:
They can afford it because they don't waste billions on the military
Click to expand...

To Althea: Was it a waste when RR won the Cold War without firing a shot? In short: The Soviet Union was a Third World country with a First World Military, yet they could not compete against our military because of the money RR spent rebuilding a depleted military after the Democrat Party gave their own country a political defeat in Vietnam. (The U.S. military never lost a battle in Vietnam.)

Djinn said:
A valid point. Most of those who gripe about Biden's $2 trillion infrastructure plan fail to recognize that the cost is less than a third of our annual military budget.
Click to expand...

To Djinn: Biden’s infrastructure plan is doublespeak for creating parasite government jobs, while the U.S. military budget is 3.4 percent of the GDP.


That which free people call a police force is called an army in a dictatorship. Once the threat of cross-border wars has been laid to rest, every national army must transform itself into a police force committed to protecting the ruling class, and suppressing private sector liberties. Why is that significant? Answer: A professional soldier serves a higher calling than does a policeman.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...cupied-amp-Not-Occupied&p=2980134#post2980134

Keep the difference between an army and a police force in mind if you take the time to analyze this chart:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US

Finally, American Communists (the Democrat Party) clearly want China’s military superior to ours.


Parenthetically, liberals always put their tax dollar demands above the needs of the military-industrial complex. In fact, the Parasite Class’ media- education-entertainment complex is ripping this country apart, while Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex defends this country. Listen to what he said:
​


Ike was correct. The military-industrial complex is necessary, while the media-education-entertainment complex is neither necessary, nor good for the country.

Finally, every time the next budget is debated Democrats swear the military budget needed to defend the nation is not an ethical ENTITLEMENT. Think about that in relation to the political power of the Parasite Class and their philosophical entitlements.​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?112657-Tax-Credit-Complex&p=2879026#post2879026
 
Flanders said:

To Althea: Was it a waste when RR won the Cold War without firing a shot? In short: The Soviet Union was a Third World country with a First World Military, yet they could not compete against our military because of the money RR spent rebuilding a depleted military after the Democrat Party gave their own country a political defeat in Vietnam. (The U.S. military never lost a battle in Vietnam.)



To Djinn: Biden’s infrastructure plan is doublespeak for creating parasite government jobs, while the U.S. military budget is 3.4 percent of the GDP.


That which free people call a police force is called an army in a dictatorship. Once the threat of cross-border wars has been laid to rest, every national army must transform itself into a police force committed to protecting the ruling class, and suppressing private sector liberties. Why is that significant? Answer: A professional soldier serves a higher calling than does a policeman.
​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...cupied-amp-Not-Occupied&p=2980134#post2980134

Keep the difference between an army and a police force in mind if you take the time to analyze this chart:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US

Finally, American Communists (the Democrat Party) clearly want China’s military superior to ours.


Parenthetically, liberals always put their tax dollar demands above the needs of the military-industrial complex. In fact, the Parasite Class’ media- education-entertainment complex is ripping this country apart, while Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex defends this country. Listen to what he said:
​


Ike was correct. The military-industrial complex is necessary, while the media-education-entertainment complex is neither necessary, nor good for the country.

Finally, every time the next budget is debated Democrats swear the military budget needed to defend the nation is not an ethical ENTITLEMENT. Think about that in relation to the political power of the Parasite Class and their philosophical entitlements.​

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?112657-Tax-Credit-Complex&p=2879026#post2879026
Click to expand...
The U.S has been sent packing in every military engagement we've incited since the end of WW2.

Time for us to realize the high tech toys cannot win wars anymore. In fact, we're getting attacked every day in cyberspace, while the MIC wastes billions on obsolete weaponry.
 
Flanders said:


To Djinn: Biden’s infrastructure plan is doublespeak for creating parasite government jobs, while the U.S. military budget is 3.4 percent of the GDP.

​
Click to expand...

Your argument makes no sense. The first half of your argument is a criticism of government jobs. And the second half concerns how much is spent on the military.

To address each - government jobs are not automatically "bad." Our infrastructure is crumbling, and we badly need jobs to shore it up. And there's the obvious issue that the U.S. military is not only a massive source of government jobs - but it's the largest employer in the world, providing 3.2 million government jobs.

As to the GDP - I'm not checking your figures, but Biden's plan costs less than 1/3 that of the military. So if the military is 3.4% of the GDP, then Biden's infrastructure plan is about 1% of the GDP.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top