Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
irishpatrick said:
Then, imo, you need to wake up. Every single new program takes money, which comes from us, which means we have less money. The fewer dollars we have to spend in our own lives, means we are less free to do what WE want. Further, with each new program we allow the government to implement, we are giving that area of control to the state, which means we are losing the control in our own lives.

The larger the government, the smaller we become–it is a fact, not a guess.
Click to expand...
And the money the government takes goes into some bottomless chasm from which it never emerges to serve the people…:rolleyes:
 
_Abyssinia said:
Fox news is the single news network that provides different points of view among an ocean of liberal news networks, and people attack Fox news for perhaps having more conservatives / Republicans to share their views? 🤷
Click to expand...
Some only want to hear the echo of their own voices. Woe to those who have a different opinion and a different slant on things.
 
irishpatrick said:
Then, imo, you need to wake up. Every single new program takes money, which comes from us, which means we have less money. The fewer dollars we have to spend in our own lives, means we are less free to do what WE want. Further, with each new program we allow the government to implement, we are giving that area of control to the state, which means we are losing the control in our own lives.

Your analogy about shares in a corporation does not wash. The government NEVER gives back control we religuish to it, and we cannot sell our shares in the government to “opt out” of certain programs. Once a program is approved, the state has it forever, nd we have no say at all. None.

We see how the state’s unavoidable intrusion in our freedoms is already taking place through things like the HHS mandate.

The larger the government, the smaller we become–it is a fact, not a guess.
Click to expand...
Take the blue pill. It will make you feel better and you’ll be a happier serf. Besides Roberts is only saying government cannot make you do something you do not want to do only tax you if you don’t.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Well I guess the choice is between starving and living in a cardboard box or working for Home Depot, yeah he had the freedom to choice.

However, he has responsibility and responsibility forces us to make choices we sometimes would rather not make.

Jim
Click to expand...
It sounds like he made a sound choice, so what is the problem?
 
seekerz said:
And the money the government takes goes into some bottomless chasm from which it never emerges to serve the people…:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Again, you miss the point. We lose choice and freedom with each national program passed. It may not seem that way, but is undeniably true. A person cannot opt out of Social Security, even if they have a better way to invest for retirement. A person will not be able to opt out of any taxes leavied for the ACA even if they don’t want it, and even if they have found a better way to serve their own lives and families. With each new federal program, we shed a little more control and a little more freedom.

The example of people requiring insurance to drive a car also does not wash because people can choose not to drive–they still keep personal choice.
 
mary_bobo said:
Some only want to hear the echo of their own voices. Woe to those who have a different opinion and a different slant on things.
Click to expand...
I know, like Conservatives who only watch FOX and read rightist sources.

I wouldn’t normally type “rightist” but figured I just join in on the term “leftist”.
 
irishpatrick said:
Again, you miss the point. We lose choice and freedom with national program passed. It may not seem that way, but is undeniably true. A person cannot opt out of Social Security, even if they have a better way to invest for retirement. A person will not be able to opt out of any taxes leavied for the ACA even if they don’t want it, and even if they have found a better way to serve their own lives and families. With each new federal program, we shed a little more control and a little more freedom.
Click to expand...
Actually they can if they are
  • Federal employees hired before 1984 who elected to continue to participate in the federal retirement program instead of receiving part of their retirement under Social Security coverage.
  • State or local government workers (police officers, firefighters, and teachers) hired before March 31, 1986 and participating in their employers’ alternative retirement system.
  • Ministers may choose whether or not they will participate in the Social Security program.
  • Self-employed workers with annual net earnings below $400.
  • Election workers earning $1,000 or less a year.
  • Household workers earning less than $1,500 per year.
  • Minor children with earnings from household work but for whom household work is not their principal occupation.
  • College students working under Federal Work Study programs, graduate students receiving stipends while working as teaching assistants, research assistants, or on fellowships, and most postdoctoral researchers.
  • Individuals who are members of certain religious groups such as the Amish and Mennonites.
  • Residents who work and live in Galveston, Texas
The only way SS can be legal but the loopholes are tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnny!
 
austenbosten said:
Actually they can if they are
  • Federal employees hired before 1984 who elected to continue to participate in the federal retirement program instead of receiving part of their retirement under Social Security coverage.
  • State or local government workers (police officers, firefighters, and teachers) hired before March 31, 1986 and participating in their employers’ alternative retirement system.
  • Ministers may choose whether or not they will participate in the Social Security program.
  • Self-employed workers with annual net earnings below $400.
  • Election workers earning $1,000 or less a year.
  • Household workers earning less than $1,500 per year.
  • Minor children with earnings from household work but for whom household work is not their principal occupation.
  • College students working under Federal Work Study programs, graduate students receiving stipends while working as teaching assistants, research assistants, or on fellowships, and most postdoctoral researchers.
  • Individuals who are members of certain religious groups such as the Amish and Mennonites.
  • Residents who work and live in Galveston, Texas
The only way SS can be legal but the loopholes are tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnny!
Click to expand...
Galveston? Really?
 
seekerz said:
What ‘wrong thing’ is the ACA doing? Health care is complex; it’s trying to achieve a very difficult but very necessary revamping. Piecemeal won’t do; tort reform in individual states for example, have not decreased costs - to my knowledge. Just because it is difficult and complicated doesn’t make it wrong. Just because the bill isn’t perfect or doesn’t give everybody what they want, doesn’t make it a bad bill.

The contraceptive/abortion concern is not insurmountable and in my mind is could be readily solved for example, by creating an separate insurance groups for employees of conscientious objectors so that their health coverage would be completely independent of their employers. IMO, it’s time to sever health coverage from employment anyway.
Click to expand...
Purchasing medical insurance does absolutely nothing to fix the problem of escalating health care costs. Which is what the purpose of revamping the system to begin with. Putting a band aid on a severed limb isn’t going to do anything to stop the bleeding. Costs are going to continue to go up regardless of how many people have insurance. This new law just means that soon no one except the very wealthy will be able to afford the insurance either.
 
Dawnia said:
Purchasing medical insurance does absolutely nothing to fix the problem of escalating health care costs. Which is what the purpose of revamping the system to begin with. Putting a band aid on a severed limb isn’t going to do anything to stop the bleeding. Costs are going to continue to go up regardless of how many people have insurance. This new law just means that soon no one except the very wealthy will be able to afford the insurance either.
Click to expand...
Costs will rise even faster with a federal program paying. The better way to go is to mandate competition among all providers. All this ACA bill will do is make the rich get richer (which is ironic because the left hates when that happens).
 
irishpatrick said:
Again, you miss the point. We lose choice and freedom with each national program passed. It may not seem that way, but is undeniably true. A person cannot opt out of Social Security, even if they have a better way to invest for retirement. A person will not be able to opt out of any taxes leavied for the ACA even if they don’t want it, and even if they have found a better way to serve their own lives and families. With each new federal program, we shed a little more control and a little more freedom.

The example of people requiring insurance to drive a car also does not wash because people can choose not to drive–they still keep personal choice.
Click to expand...
Correction, some people see more limitations on their choices and freedoms while other people gain choices and freedoms which they had no access to before…That is, in a nutshell, what this fight is about.
 
irishpatrick said:
How do they manage that? Are you talking about the town’s employees?
Click to expand...
Well it was before the Federal government closed the loophole. Before the 1983 changes, three counties in Texas (Galveston, Brazoria, and Matagorda) opted out of the system and now use an Alternate Plan, a private pension plan created and administered by First Financial Benefits, Inc.

In 1983, the U.S. Congress closed a loophole in the original Social Security Act that allowed municipal governments to opt out of the Social Security system, and also brought all civilian federal employees whose employment began in 1984 or later under the system.

So no more munis can opt out of the bankrupt Ponzi scheme known as Social (in)Security
 
Dawnia said:
Purchasing medical insurance does absolutely nothing to fix the problem of escalating health care costs. Which is what the purpose of revamping the system to begin with. Putting a band aid on a severed limb isn’t going to do anything to stop the bleeding. Costs are going to continue to go up regardless of how many people have insurance. This new law just means that soon no one except the very wealthy will be able to afford the insurance either.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Provisions such as the health insurance exchange will drive down premium costs as private insurance companies compete against public options for the vast number of new policy holders. I don’t think any business would choose to simply ignore a market consisting of 45 million potential new customers. And purchasing insurance DOES fix the major cause of increases in medical costs; namely that health care providers like hospitals will no longer have a reason to fleece the insured to recover the cost of treating the uninsured.
 
seekerz said:
Correction, some people see more limitations on their choices and freedoms while other people gain choices and freedoms which they had no access to before…That is, in a nutshell, what this fight is about.
Click to expand...
In other words, the ends justify the means. If I rob from you to give to someone more deserving, it’s a win-win?
 
Dawnia said:
Purchasing medical insurance does absolutely nothing to fix the problem of escalating health care costs. Which is what the purpose of revamping the system to begin with. Putting a band aid on a severed limb isn’t going to do anything to stop the bleeding. Costs are going to continue to go up regardless of how many people have insurance. This new law just means that soon no one except the very wealthy will be able to afford the insurance either.
Click to expand...
You obviously have never seen a Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement claim side by side with one for a large, private insurance company. Government can and does negotiate the lowest rates of all payers that I know of. Providers may set whatever prices they want, as high as they want, but Medicare/Medicaid pays what it determines is a reasonable rate and THAT is what they pay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top