Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimR-OCDS said:
Your out of touch.

When people lose their jobs, they lose their health insurance unless they can afford to pay the COBRA payments. Mine were $1400 per month. I couldn’t afford it, but thankfully, I have Romney Care.

Also, the 47 million was used before the 2008 crash and 9 million were put out of work.

Jim
Click to expand...
I don’t know I have facts to back up my out of touch numbers…I don’t know where yours are coming from.:rolleyes:
 
dixieagle said:
I don’t share in the outrage over the concept of universal healthcare, though I do share the bishops’ concerns and believe that some serious fixes are necessary.

I would rather see state-based, Massachusetts-style “RomneyCare” the norm, as I don’t have much confidence that the feds won’t screw things up. My 92 year old father lives in Massachusetts, and his health care is outstanding, despite numerous, longstanding medical issues. I think that Mitt Romney should be shouting from the rooftops the success of his Mass. program, rather than running from it.

I think that a move toward a “Geisinger” type of healthcare model is essential (moving away from the notoriously expensive “fee for service” model that is common now.) tinyurl.com/892te4s Our healthcare costs are outrageously expensive, and our life expectancy ranks behind Chile, for heaven’s sake.

While people can reasonably disagree about the means to achieve better results, it is abundantly clear that drastic measures are required. We need more primary care physicians, better preventive care, and more common sense in our lifestyle choices.
Click to expand...
Romney is not running from it, he’s simply stating that “What’s best for Massachusetts is not necessarily best for America.”

Once again why must all responsibility and authority be left to the Federal level? At what point does state’s courts, governors, and state legislatures are just ceremonial. 🤷
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Romney: “Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt.”

Politifact: “How is it that a law can raise taxes and cut spending, but also add trillions to the deficit?”

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/28/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obamacare-adds-trillions-deficit/
Click to expand...
Because raising taxes lowers economic productivity which in effect lowers revenues and although there was 1/2 Trillion dollar cut to medicare…it never went back to the people, it went to fund ObamaTax…where the revenues from the taxes are not enough to fund the costs associated with ObamaTax :doh2:
 
irishpatrick said:
IMO, this gaurantees Obama for a second term and beyond.

We also now conclusively know that it is impossible to know what we will get with any justices approved to the SC bench. Roberts went to the left.
Click to expand...
There is no beyond a second term for Obama: the GOP can take some consolation in that much. And I don’t think the decision is at all a guarantee for Obama’s re-election. It all depends on how each candidate frames the Supreme Court ruling, and of course the state of the economy is still the central issue, as well as immigration reform.
 
meltzerboy said:
There is no beyond a second term: the GOP can take some consolation in that much. And I don’t think the decision is at all a guarantee for Obama’s re-election. It all depends on how each candidate frames the Supreme Court ruling, and of course the state of the economy is still the central issue, as well as immigration reform.
Click to expand...
Some of the political analysis is that the ruling helps Romney. A Supreme Court ruling that upholds unpopular legislation doesn’t suddenly make it popular. It also doesn’t make it permanent. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Btw…it is not just conservative pundits drawing these conclusions. I’ve heard liberals state it as well. Obama certainly “won,” but it may have been a pyrrhic victory.
 
rlg94086 said:
Some of the political analysis is that the ruling helps Romney. A Supreme Court ruling that upholds unpopular legislation doesn’t suddenly make it popular. It also doesn’t make it permanent. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Btw…it is not just conservative pundits drawing these conclusions. I’ve heard liberals state it as well. Obama certainly “won,” but it may have been a pyrrhic victory.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree, and stated as much a few hundred posts previously. Romney may benefit by energizing both his base and some Independents who were leaning in his direction. And who knows what other issues may suddenly become prominent meanwhile. In politics, a few months is a lifetime.
 
If he does get a 2nd term… I will join you in the riot.
irishpatrick said:
IMO, this gaurantees Obama for a second term and beyond.

We also now conclusively know that it is impossible to know what we will get with any justices approved to the SC bench. Roberts went to the left.
Click to expand...
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Romney: “Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt.”

Politifact: “How is it that a law can raise taxes and cut spending, but also add trillions to the deficit?”

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/28/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obamacare-adds-trillions-deficit/
Click to expand...
Do not trust PolitiFact as the arbiter of political truth. PolitiFact claimed before that the Hyde amendment protects abortion from not being funding through ObamaCare which is not true because the money does not go through HHS appropriations so the Hyde amendment does not apply to ObamaCare. I exposed PoltiFact’s untruths

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9146695&postcount=327
 
rlg94086 said:
Some of the political analysis is that the ruling helps Romney. A Supreme Court ruling that upholds unpopular legislation doesn’t suddenly make it popular. It also doesn’t make it permanent. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Btw…it is not just conservative pundits drawing these conclusions. I’ve heard liberals state it as well. Obama certainly “won,” but it may have been a pyrrhic victory.
Click to expand...
I agree that his re-election is not assured. I wonder (for example) about whether the youth vote will materialize as decisively for Obama as it did in 2008, considering how very much affected many of these voters will be by the ACA. Not all of them are poor; many earn handsome salaries as young professionals and have been willing to gamble on their youth by not purchasing even employer-subsidized insurance, preferring more disposable income. They will not be offered subsidies, as they will not qualify.
 
dixieagle said:
I don’t share in the outrage over the concept of universal healthcare, though I do share the bishops’ concerns and believe that some serious fixes are necessary.

I would rather see state-based, Massachusetts-style “RomneyCare” the norm, as I don’t have much confidence that the feds won’t screw things up. My 92 year old father lives in Massachusetts, and his health care is outstanding, despite numerous, longstanding medical issues. I think that Mitt Romney should be shouting from the rooftops the success of his Mass. program, rather than running from it.

I think that a move toward a “Geisinger” type of healthcare model is essential (moving away from the notoriously expensive “fee for service” model that is common now.) tinyurl.com/892te4s Our healthcare costs are outrageously expensive, and our life expectancy ranks behind Chile, for heaven’s sake.

While people can reasonably disagree about the means to achieve better results, it is abundantly clear that drastic measures are required. We need more primary care physicians, better preventive care, and more common sense in our lifestyle choices.
Click to expand...
Huge difference between a state health care system, and there are things Romney said he would change about it, than a federal bureaucracy. And if you do not like health care in Massachusetts, you can move to another state. You can not move to another state and escape ObamaTax.
 
onmyknees said:
The government now has control on us. They said that they will take care of the poor for free, the rich will have the money to pay the taxes for their healthcare but the middle class and small business’ will suffer the most. Not good for the economy! The government can raise taxes as much as they want because they are in control. We will be getting LESS healthcare for MORE of our money. There will also be long waits to have certain procedures done. Obamacare is socialized medicine.
Click to expand...
The poor and the middle class are going to suffer the most from ObamaTax if it is not repealed

whiteoutpress.com/articles/q22012/court-rules-obamacare-a-massive-tax-on-the-poor418

They will not able to afford the premiums of health care or the penalty of not purchasing health care.
 
onmyknees said:
The chief justice Roberts said that the mandate is a tax to the surprise of the rest of the court, the president(who said it was not a tax)and everyone else. It’s like he just made it up.:eek: Since they upheld the entire mandate does this mean that Catholics will not have the religious freedom to decline selling things that are against their faith?
Click to expand...
HHS mandate lawsuits are going forward. There was a sign yesterday from JusticeGinsburg that signal the mandate can not interfere with free exercise of religion.
 
gilliam said:
Romney cash intake tops $3 million
politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/romney-cash-intake-tops-million-127684.html

🍿
Click to expand...
I hope this is a sign of the boost for Romney’s campaign for the long run. He got more donors in one day than he did all of May.

Yesterday was a bad decision by the Supreme Court, but it is has undoubtedly helped Romney.

It was important for many people to get rid of Obama before, now it has moved to another level.

Romney has got to hammer that ObamaTax is a huge tax on the middle class and the poor and he has got to describe what he is going to do to improve the health care system.
From a nakedly partisan viewpoint, today’s ruling is the best case scenario for the GOP. ObamaCare is still deeply unpopular and now the only way to undo it is to sweep Obama and dozens of Democrats out of office. The GOP base will speed up its rallying to Romney, because it is their only chance to repeal this monstrosity. Independents, who have been peppered with silly social issue memes from the media, will put all of that aside to ensure that ObamaCare is repealed.
Click to expand...
breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/28/todays-scotus-decision-dooms-obama-presidency
 
TheTrueCentrist said:
Romney: “Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt.”

Politifact: “How is it that a law can raise taxes and cut spending, but also add trillions to the deficit?”

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/28/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-obamacare-adds-trillions-deficit/
Click to expand...
Why The Supreme Court Decision on Obamacare May Dramatically Increase the Deficit

forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/06/28/why-the-supreme-court-decision-on-obamacare-may-dramatically-increase-the-deficit
 
jay29 said:
It’s ironic that people thought you couldn’t get a president worse than Bush. You could even cut the hatred in the air with a knife. I would rather have Bush, with all his faults, than the guy we have now.
Click to expand...
:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
 
He_Man said:
Medicaid Expansion struck down. Not sure what that amounts too.

I think I might go back and look up the topics where supporters repeated droned “it’s not a tax” over and over.

I don’t think the word tax even appears anywhere in the bill - control + f didn’t locate it.
Click to expand...
It just means if a State wants to refuse extra Medicaid funding from the Federal government they can do so. Of course, it would only hurt the working poor that will be refused medical care because their Medicaid coverage is denied by the State legislature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top