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

[unstoppable_II]

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.

The way it was explained to me is person “A” has $100,000 and wants to bribe politician “B”. Such a direct bribe would, of course, be illegal, so “A” has a broker set up two accounts, one long and one short. Neither “A” nor “B” is associated with these accounts. One will win; one will lose. Once the winner and loser accounts are determined, the names are then assigned to the accounts. The loser account pays the winner, and VOILA! the money is laundered and transferred.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

I am not sure where the relationship is. You can be against abortion and in favor of Obamacare, or even single payer. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

The single payer they love will also pay for abortion. The innocents lose again. Evil done in the name of good is intrinsically evil. Supporters of single payer support abortion. You cannot justify sin.

If you can’t see relationships between ACA, single payer, or anything the government does and abortion you are blind.

 

[Ridgerunner]

One wonders what healthcare “should” cost. Amish don’t believe in insurance. I have seen them in the doctor’s office. They pay in greenbacks, request a discount and get it. It’s worth it to the provider because it’s so simple for them.

What if Obamacare had not outlawed “catastrophic only” insurance, and if states didn’t put minimums on deductibles by fiat. What would my insurance cost if I could have, say, a $20,000 deductible and a medical savings account besides, to build up that deductible?

I believe most people could pay for their own care most of the time, especially if they paid it in actual money at the point of service.

The way it turned out under Obamacare is that some people pay nothing or virtually nothing for insurance that’s otherwise very expensive and covers things people could pay for themselves. Some people pay huge premiums and have really large deductibles and co-pays besides for the very same insurance. All Obamacare is, is an income redistribution among the middle class.

 

[Murmurs]

Why didn’t he pay for it himself? Pulling a tooth and some antibiotics couldn’t be that much.

Some people are simply too poor and if it’s a choice between up-front medical fees (or insurance) or food on the table like most people I imagine if in that situation you would go with food first, too. I am very glad that you and many many others (including me for that matter) are/would be in a position to pay for that emergency dental treatment - but some people just aren’t.

 

[Darryl_Revok]

If you can’t see relationships between ACA, single payer, or anything the government does and abortion you are blind.

I doubt the rationale for the ACA was abortion. It’s just an unfortunate side-effect, the kind that often proliferate around government enterprises. As I said earlier, people support pumping money into the military for the protection of the United States, but every once in a while, a Hellfire missile finds its way into an wedding party, or a plane clips a cable car line.

The only way to avoid entangling yourself in the various moral compromises involved in being a member of a democracy is creating a micronation on an oil platform, or joining the ranks of the sovereign citizens.

 

[jtauke]

Listening to coverage now on Glenn Beck, UNREAL.

For love of all that is good, you think Beck is a reliable news source? He’s just as big a paid talking head as Chris Matthews is.

Instead of taking Beck’s word for it, use the critical thinking skills that were gifted to you by God.

 

[zz912]

I doubt the rationale for the ACA was abortion. It’s just an unfortunate side-effect, the kind that often proliferate around government enterprises. As I said earlier, people support pumping money into the military for the protection of the United States, but every once in a while, a Hellfire missile finds its way into an wedding party, or a plane clips a cable car line.

The only way to avoid entangling yourself in the various moral compromises involved in being a member of a democracy is creating a micronation on an oil platform, or joining the ranks of the sovereign citizens.

That is certainly an interesting excuse. I give you credit for originality.

An unintentional plane accident is comparable to the intentional funding of the slaughter of babies? Have you forgot the long, drawn-out battle where supposed “pro-life” Democrats tried to get the abortion portions removed, and eventually sold out for a worthless piece of paper that has already proven useless in stopping the funding of killing babies.

 

[zz912]

To my point 1) above:

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor put it this morning in a TV interview such: “it was a very standard application of legal technique”.

Thus, nothing controversial about it. No conspiracy theories required.

Mr. Tribe is lying. Blatantly and bald-faced lying.

The concept of looking at the legislative intent is to be used when there is some confusion about the interpretation of some wording in the law. There is NO confusion about the wording in question. It flatly states that only those in state exchanges were eligible for the subsidy. And that wording was intentionally placed in there to intimidate states into forming the exchanges (thinking their citizens would scream and holler for the federal funds).

It was intentional, and when states called the bluff of the feds, the law was broken. Period.

Mr. Tribe and anyone supporting this bastardized decision are lying when they claim this is normal.

 

[jtauke]

Jesus did not tell me to force others to tend the sick, feed the hungry, comfort the bereaved, clothe the naked.

He told me to do it.

So when was the last time you paid the tab for someone less fortunate’s medical procedure? I’m sure you could find someone in your home parish that’s being slowly crushed by the current system, are you going to take a second mortgage you’re house so they can get the cancer treatment they need?

People like you always say charity is the job of the person, not of the government…but guess what…healthcare is to broad and expensive for you to do a damn thing to help someone who needs surgery to remove a tumor, chemotherapy, organ transplant, etc, etc, etc unless you’re multi-millionaire.

 

[Al_Moritz]

So when was the last time you paid the tab for someone less fortunate’s medical procedure? I’m sure you could find someone in your home parish that’s being slowly crushed by the current system, are you going to take a second mortgage you’re house so they can get the cancer treatment they need?

People like you always say charity is the job of the person, not of the government…but guess what…healthcare is to broad and expensive for you to do a damn thing to help someone who needs surgery to remove a tumor, chemotherapy, organ transplant, etc, etc, etc unless you’re multi-millionaire.

That’s how the real world works.

That is also why you cannot have universal healthcare without universal health insurance. That’s how the real world works.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Some people are simply too poor and if it’s a choice between up-front medical fees (or insurance) or food on the table like most people I imagine if in that situation you would go with food first, too. I am very glad that you and many many others (including me for that matter) are/would be in a position to pay for that emergency dental treatment - but some people just aren’t.

1. If one is “too poor” there have always been programs to help them.
2. Secondly, shouldn’t we work on the underlying issues of why one is “too poor” rather than screw everyone else over?

 

[stinkcat_14]

The single payer they love will also pay for abortion. The innocents lose again. Evil done in the name of good is intrinsically evil. Supporters of single payer support abortion. You cannot justify sin.

If you can’t see relationships between ACA, single payer, or anything the government does and abortion you are blind.

Most insurance policies pay for abortion now, so there is nothing unique about single payer that has anything to do with abortion. One can be in favor of single payer and against abortion. We have many of those types of people in the US, they support Medicare which is single payer and are against abortion.

 

[Beautiful]

Are there any other religions besides Catholic, Jew, Baptist and Muslim that oppose this decision? Help me out please.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Are there any other religions besides Catholic, Jew, Baptist and Muslim that oppose this decision? Help me out please.

The opposition to this decision does not really have a religious objection. There are of course religious objections to the mandatory coverage of birth control and abortion but that is not at stake in this decision. This is more of a prudential matter that no religious body could teach authoritatively on.

 

[styrgwillidar]

That’s how the real world works.

That is also why you cannot have universal healthcare without universal health insurance. That’s how the real world works.

Good news Al Moritz. You convinced me I was wrong. So, yesterday I want and took half of all my kids savings and donated them to a couple of the local clinics!!!

My kids were a little surprised and upset, but I explained to them that this is what Jesus wanted me to do. That it was virtuous of me to take the result of their labor and give it to others to help the poor in the world.

Now, they kind of wondered how my giving away their money made me virtuous, but I assured them that according to my fellow Catholics that was what Jesus wanted. We had to take their money, and on a larger scale take their kids and grandkids money to help the poor of this generation. My kids kind of wondered how they’re supposed to take care of the poor in the future if we’re sticking them with the loans for folks now. But I assured them that based on your writing, Jesus would approve of all of us solving our current situation by placing the burden on future generations.

Now, they still kind of have doubts about how this is charity on my part, and I am a little uncomfortable as well since I’d always interpreted charity as involving sacrifice on one’s own part. As someone else said, helping out with fellow parishoners whose families are dealing with cancer, or helping out other parishes, or donating money to missionaries doing medical work, or volunteering my own time in clinics and hospitals. But I assured them of the rightness of your position, stiffing others who have no say in the matter with the bill is how the real world works.

 

[Beautiful]

The opposition to this decision does not really have a religious objection. There are of course religious objections to the mandatory coverage of birth control and abortion but that is not at stake in this decision. ** This is more of a prudential matter that no religious body could teach authoritatively on**.

not true…but no thanks
Are there any other religions besides Catholic, Jew, Baptist and Muslim that oppose this decision? Help me out please.
Anyone else with some help?

 

[_Abyssinia]

[MUST WATCH] 6 YOUNG ADULTS HAVE A MESSAGE FOR SCOTUS

catholicvote.org/must-watch-6-young-adults-have-a-message-for-scotus/

 

[ComputerGeek25]

not true…but no thanks
Are there any other religions besides Catholic, Jew, Baptist and Muslim that oppose this decision? Help me out please.
Anyone else with some help?

What he said was factually correct.

 

[Beautiful]

What he said was factually correct.

sorry…my bad
wrong thread

 

[Murmurs]

1. If one is “too poor” there have always been programs to help them.
2. Secondly, shouldn’t we work on the underlying issues of why one is “too poor” rather than screw everyone else over?

Yes and Yes! (but we can’t solve no. 2 overnight)