Supreme Court gives Obama second big health care win in ruling upholding nationwide subsidies

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Al_Moritz said:
And what if you need catastrophic care that would otherwise make you bankrupt, and which happened so many times in this country? You need insurance, period.
Click to expand...
Al, but you forget an individual will take care of it even pay for the costs of surgeries and catastrophic care. Probem solved.
 
openmind77 said:
…
Taking care of the poor, sick, hungry, strangers is exactly what Jesus taught and he did not put any conditions on doing so - it has to be done regardless (Matthew 25:31-46)
Click to expand...
I think liberal politicians are in it for the power. They are the embodiment of the pigs of Orwell’s Animal Farm that controlled the wealth produced by the farm but produced none of their own to contribute. I just think they are kidding themselves, and us, that they are doing it “for the children.”
Consider “[John] Kerry’s Charity Gap”
Boston Globe
May 16, 1996
Over the past six years, Weld [Kerry’s opponent] has reported gross income totaling $1,082,875 of which 15.2 percent has gone to charity. Kerry’s six-year total income is $724,042; according to his federal tax returns, he earmarked just under seven-tenths of 1 percent [0.7%] for charitable contributions. …
Only in politics do men call themselves “compassionate” for voting to spend other people’s money. And only in politics are people who care a lot and give away a lot denounced as “greedy.”
Click to expand...
boston. com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/1996/05/16/kerrys_charity_gap
Click to expand...
Kerry even docked his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid taxes in Massachusetts.
You want to talk hypocrisy? Consider “Cattlegate”. Why doesn’t someone ask Hillary why she didn’t, as senator, propose a government program to teach the poor how to trade cattle futures. With only a $1,000 investment per poor person, we could have solved the problem of poverty in one month. We wouldn’t be having this debate because the poor would have become rich liker her. Have you seen this question raised by anyone else? 🤷
 
JButky said:
Nonsense, I used to be able to pay for my healthcare or for someone in need, or do charity locally. Obamacare makes that illegal. It certainly is difficult, Impossible to my mind, to reconcile Obamacare with long established Catholic social teaching. Subsidiarity, charity, etc. which are completely disrespected by Obamacare…
Click to expand...
Most people cannot afford even a simple surgery without insurance, much less anything major or hospitalization.
 
unstoppable_II said:
I think liberal politicians are in it for the power.
Click to expand...
Of course this is all about power, and not about providing healthcare for all. How clever the left is to trick gullible Catholics into supporting Obamacare by convincing them it will help people without healthcare. Can I say some Catholic are gullible ? or is that uncharitable.

Ishii
 
unstoppable_II said:
Why doesn’t someone ask Hillary why she didn’t, as senator, propose a government program to teach the poor how to trade cattle futures. With only a $1,000 investment per poor person, we could have solved the problem of poverty in one month. We wouldn’t be having this debate because the poor would have become rich liker her. Have you seen this question raised by anyone else? 🤷
Click to expand...
Trouble is, there is always somebody else on the other end of the trade. I actually met the guy, or at least one of them, who was on the other end of Hillary’s trade. The broker, of course, was serving her at this guy’s expense, telling the guy how he was on the verge of making a fortune, getting more and more of his money. The guy went broke. He was a fool to gamble on cattle futures like that and trust the broker, but then, he didn’t know the broker was a crook who was serving Hillary Clinton’s interest at the expense of his.
 
ishii said:
Of course this is all about power, and not about providing healthcare for all. How clever the left is to trick gullible Catholics into supporting Obamacare by convincing them it will help people without healthcare. Can I say some Catholic are gullible ? or is that uncharitable.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Well, I think it’s you who are gullible by believing what you say.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Cuz they chose not to have coverage.

I have affordable health insurance for my wife and myself. That’s what I’m happy with Obama Care and before that was Romney care when I had affordable health insurance and was able to get a physical, which led to discovering the cancer I had. Had I not had health insurance, I would not have gone for my physical until I hit 65, then it would’ve been too late.

Jim
Click to expand...
To be fair there are still those who would love to have or need coverage who don’t qualify for a subsidy and live in states that have not expanded Medicaid or otherwise don’t qualify for Medicaid because of some assets, though not enough assets to go very far. They don’t necessarily choose not to have coverage. They in fact might love to have coverage and may need it. But can’t afford it due to not making enough to pay federal income tax thus not qualifying for a subsidy and due to not qualifying for their state’s Medicaid either. That’s my biggest gripe with Obamacare. If it needs any fix, it’s for those who fall between those cracks.
 
Al_Moritz said:
And what if you need catastrophic care, once or over a period of time, that would otherwise make you bankrupt, and which happened so many times in this country? You need insurance, period.

Or do you want to let people die if they can’t afford it?

Sure, some healthcare is overblown and should not be paid by society, but reasonable help in health catastrophes or care for special diseases should be available to anyone. Otherwise we are an inhumane society.
Click to expand...
Yes and we had a better system of addressing the 1% of people in that situation. And we had charitable organizations, philanthropists, etc who observed the principles of subsidiarity taking care of those individuals while relegating government intervention for those who fell in the cracks. That has all been wiped away and with it, the eventual viability of healthcare for everyone by Obamacare. Making it the government’s responsibility and making all that illegal is inhumane and NOT in line with Catholic social doctrine.

But it appears that is what you are advocating for, pennywise, pound foolish advocacy in which eventually everyone will suffer at the perview of the government/Obamacare where you can’t get healthcare unless it is paid for by their massive system??? That certainly is not in line with subsidiarity or charity and works against actually providing health CARE for everyone.
 
bibcat said:
The difference is that HMOs answer to shareholders. A single-payer system (or those who ultimately are responsible for it) answer to voters.
Click to expand...
I for one have no confidence in the average American voter.
 
ishii said:
Al - I think there is a difference between saying, “abortion will remain legal until Democrat catholics come to love the unborn more than they hate Republicans” and saying this which was posted on this thread (my bold italics):
Ishii
Click to expand...
But not as much difference than conservatives labeling people of other faiths who don’t agree with Catholics about abortion law, as baby murderers and pro abortionists.
 
Sy_Noe said:
But not as much difference than conservatives labeling people of other faiths who don’t agree with Catholics about abortion law, as baby murderers and pro abortionists.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard the excuse : “but everyone else does it” many times. Usually from children.
 
styrgwillidar said:
I have a clear conscience. How can you say a country is rich when it is this heavily in debt? Would you classify yourself as rich if you owed 4 to 5 times your annual income, and were going into debt at 1 and half times your income every year?

A lot of ways to tackle the health care issue. Including treating it like auto insurance and allow more open competition, providing individuals the same tax benefits as companies for purchasing it, lowering training requirements for medical personnel, government subsidizing facilities or personnel etc. etc. etc.

No idea how other countries are doing it, for the US to do it we have to radically revise either the federal spending, the federal income or (most likely) both. Stimulating the economy to produce more jobs would certainly be a help. Lot’s of factors, and it won’t be simple. As you said, we keep believing we’re the world’s policeman, country re-builder and peacemaker-- that costs.

As I’ve said before— I know I’ll personally have to pay more as well as have my benefits reduced. Despite all the lovely promises from my government. Not fair, but life never is. We can’t keep going this way. And frankly, I’m not paying for anything if we just keep piling the debt on, nothing noble about forcing folks in the future to pay for stuff we’re using now.
Click to expand...
The car analogy is very apt, I think.

What we are expecting is that Lizard and Flo have to pay for our every oil change. So that basically drives up premiums, deductibles and co-pays in order to cover that. On the other side of things, since the insurance companies and federal government are viewed as having deep pockets, they charge them a small ransom for their services. I recently had to go talk to someone about some lab results I had. They billed my insurance like $300 or something. We met for 15 minutes and she basically checked me over quick and told me to loose more weight. If everyone didn’t have insurance, and they charged $300 for that kind of service, I would think they would quickly lower their rates.
 
Al_Moritz said:
So you are going to provide healthcare for the needy? Interesting.

I repeat: The Holy Father once said that universal healthcare is a human right:

Pope, church leaders call for guaranteed health care for all people

*Pope Benedict XVI and other church leaders said it was the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay.

Access to adequate medical attention, the pope said in a written message Nov. 18, was one of the “inalienable rights” of man.*
Click to expand...
Everyone already has access to adequate medical attention in this country. A doctors office or hospital can’t turn you away because you’re poor or black.
 
bibcat said:
But it isn’t. It just keeps a dying system on life-support all the longer, when it should be put out of it’s misery–or allowed to die a long-overdue death.
Click to expand...
I have the sneaky feeling that Obamacare was designed to do just that: put the present unsustainable system permanently to bed. Already some smaller pretend-insurers are dropping out of the game…
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
Everyone already has access to adequate medical attention in this country. A doctors office or hospital can’t turn you away because you’re poor or black.
Click to expand...
“Adequate access” at what cost? Santa doesn’t cruise the hospitals paying for the “poor or black” patients - somebody has to foot those bills. The government just came up with an alternative to the previous hit and miss system of charge-peter-extra-to-pay-for-paul. Obamacare changed that to paying for premiums rather than paying whatever monstrous bills the hospitals assigned to uncompensated care.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top