The GOP says "no" to healthcare coverage for many Americans

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
They won't tax the wealthy at the same rate they do the middle class, and they only seem to care about deficits and debt incurred after January 20, 2009.


Their priorities seem to be to 1) get Obama out of the White House and 2) repeal the Affordable Health Care Act before too many of its' provisions take effect.
 
\(())/ said:
They won't tax the wealthy at the same rate they do the middle class, and they only seem to care about deficits and debt incurred after January 20, 2009.


Their priorities seem to be to 1) get Obama out of the White House and 2) repeal the Affordable Health Care Act before too many of its' provisions take effect.
Click to expand...

The scum bags know once the Affordable Health Care Act goes into full effect they can kiss that fight good-bye. Come 2016 they better revamp their party or be delegated a has-been political entity.

Obama's accomplishment hasn't been fully realized yet. Once the people actually experience affordable health care any opponent will be considered a dinosaur.
 
apple0154 said:
The scum bags know once the Affordable Health Care Act goes into full effect they can kiss that fight good-bye. Come 2016 they better revamp their party or be delegated a has-been political entity.

Obama's accomplishment hasn't been fully realized yet. Once the people actually experience affordable health care any opponent will be considered a dinosaur.
Click to expand...

They party will evolve and pretend they never felt that way. Its how they act now about interracial marriage and intragration.
 
They were for a lot of things until Obama was in favor of them...
 
apple0154 said:
The scum bags know once the Affordable Health Care Act goes into full effect they can kiss that fight good-bye. Come 2016 they better revamp their party or be delegated a has-been political entity.

Obama's accomplishment hasn't been fully realized yet. Once the people actually experience affordable health care any opponent will be considered a dinosaur.
Click to expand...
That's not completely true. The affordable health care act is untenable and unafordable as it is. I agree with you that it will become extremely popular as all the tenets are implemented but for it to be sustainable over the long haul price/cost controls will be required. That, in it's turn, probably isn't practical to do with out a single payer system.

All the opponents hope rest on the universal mandate. It's the keystone to health care reform. None of the modern health care systems used by the reat of the industrialized world could exist with out a universal mandate.

Since it is the keystone it will be where the GOP inserts the thin edge of the wedge to undermine health care reform. Since the balance of power on SCOTUS is for the GOP and even though the legal precendent for insurance mandates exist.....I'm not completely optimistic. If Obama does not win re-election then the affordable care act will probably be over turned. My guess is that the GOP will make this a corner stone of their campaign against him. Yet another problem for Romney. Gingrich is much better positioned to attach health care reform then Romney is.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not completely true. The affordable health care act is untenable and unafordable as it is. I agree with you that it will become extremely popular as all the tenets are implemented but for it to be sustainable over the long haul price/cost controls will be required. That, in it's turn, probably isn't practical to do with out a single payer system.

All the opponents hope rest on the universal mandate. It's the keystone to health care reform. None of the modern health care systems used by the reat of the industrialized world could exist with out a universal mandate.

Since it is the keystone it will be where the GOP inserts the thin edge of the wedge to undermine health care reform. Since the balance of power on SCOTUS is for the GOP and even though the legal precendent for insurance mandates exist.....I'm not completely optimistic. If Obama does not win re-election then the affordable care act will probably be over turned. My guess is that the GOP will make this a corner stone of their campaign against him. Yet another problem for Romney. Gingrich is much better positioned to attach health care reform then Romney is.
Click to expand...

What legal precedent is there for the Federal government to mandate health insurance?
 
Superfreak said:
You stated.... "even though the legal precendent for insurance mandates exist."

So do elaborate on that for us... what legal precedent does the Federal government have?
Click to expand...
Can you read? I didn't say there was one. I said, specifically, "The legal precendent for insurance mandates exist." Where did I mention either health care or the federal government in that sentence? I didn't. Learn how how to read dude.

Insurance mandates exist for those who drive automobiles and they exist for certain businesses, banks for example. These are established legal precedents.
 
other than state judicial willy nilly thumb up their asses don't want to lose federal dollars mindset, nobody has EVER, EVER, and I mean EVER been able to show me state constitutional authority for insurance mandates.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
other than state judicial willy nilly thumb up their asses don't want to lose federal dollars mindset, nobody has EVER, EVER, and I mean EVER been able to show me state constitutional authority for insurance mandates.
Click to expand...
OK, well then how about the Federal mandates that Savings and Loan Banks carry Federal Depositors Insurance?
 
\(())/ said:
They won't tax the wealthy at the same rate they do the middle class, and they only seem to care about deficits and debt incurred after January 20, 2009.


Their priorities seem to be to 1) get Obama out of the White House and 2) repeal the Affordable Health Care Act before too many of its' provisions take effect.
Click to expand...

Typical republican swine.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
OK, well then how about the Federal mandates that Savings and Loan Banks carry Federal Depositors Insurance?
Click to expand...

having read a little about the FDIC, I see no 'mandate'. I do see 'benefit of being a member' by ensuring that a customers money won't be lost if a bank fails, thus preventing a bank run. but no mandate.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not completely true. The affordable health care act is untenable and unafordable as it is. I agree with you that it will become extremely popular as all the tenets are implemented but for it to be sustainable over the long haul price/cost controls will be required. That, in it's turn, probably isn't practical to do with out a single payer system.

All the opponents hope rest on the universal mandate. It's the keystone to health care reform. None of the modern health care systems used by the reat of the industrialized world could exist with out a universal mandate.

Since it is the keystone it will be where the GOP inserts the thin edge of the wedge to undermine health care reform. Since the balance of power on SCOTUS is for the GOP and even though the legal precendent for insurance mandates exist.....I'm not completely optimistic. If Obama does not win re-election then the affordable care act will probably be over turned. My guess is that the GOP will make this a corner stone of their campaign against him. Yet another problem for Romney. Gingrich is much better positioned to attach health care reform then Romney is.
Click to expand...

I agree. Health care does need to be a one-payer system. Assuming Obama gets a sceond term and policies are implemented people will want a one-payer system going into the '16 election. As that recently coined phrase "Overton Window" explains the conversation will shift from government medical vs no government medical to mandates vs one-payer system. Also, I agree if Romney is elected not only will it be difficult for him to vigorously attack ObamaCare but people may be more inclined to research the benefits themselves. If the Massachusetts medical plan is a disaster people won't be inclined to vote for Romney and if the plan is good, which it is, it may pursuade them to vote for Obama and get a similar federal deal.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
having read a little about the FDIC, I see no 'mandate'. I do see 'benefit of being a member' by ensuring that a customers money won't be lost if a bank fails, thus preventing a bank run. but no mandate.
Click to expand...
It's like the auto insurance mandate. It's not federally mandated, per se, but most States mandate FDIC insurance for Banks and S&L's. Having said that since the S&L crisises of the 1980's it's virtually impossible for a bank to be Federally chartered with out FDIC insurance which has the same affect as a mandate.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It's like the auto insurance mandate. It's not federally mandated, per se, but most States mandate FDIC insurance for Banks and S&L's. Having said that since the S&L crisises of the 1980's it's virtually impossible for a bank to be Federally chartered with out FDIC insurance which has the same affect as a mandate.
Click to expand...
so we're cool with having the federal government make enough regulations that running a business without a desired piece of something the gov wants you to have is cool and dandy, just don't call it a mandate. so why don't we start making regulations that tells people they can't work a job without buying health insurance, or buy food at a supermarket. or register a vehicle without an insurance card.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so we're cool with having the federal government make enough regulations that running a business without a desired piece of something the gov wants you to have is cool and dandy, just don't call it a mandate. so why don't we start making regulations that tells people they can't work a job without buying health insurance, or buy food at a supermarket. or register a vehicle without an insurance card.
Click to expand...

Will you comply if the State does it instead of the Feds? In Alaska proof of insurance has to be in your vehicle at all times while driving. If you are stopped and have no insurance it results in a fine.
 
Rana said:
Will you comply if the State does it instead of the Feds? In Alaska proof of insurance has to be in your vehicle at all times while driving. If you are stopped and have no insurance it results in a fine.
Click to expand...
no, there is no state constitutional authority for them to require me to buy a product or service as well. I feel the same way about auto insurance, there is no authority for them to require it, same as a drivers license or yearly registration fee. you morons want to continue to believe that the government is implementing all this crap to keep you safe if you want to. you are our own worst enemy. the state is bilking us of our hard earned money through all of this crap. I don't understand why you just don't sign your damned paycheck over to uncle sam on a weekly basis since you're all so fired up to hand him money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top