A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Are the state exchanges mandated? Because if they are not this could give a states a way out
youtube.com/watch?v=lAbmzAMZnJw
youtube.com/watch?v=lAbmzAMZnJw
- Status
A
adrift
Guest
sign
The only sign is [SIGN]People loose[/SIGN]
R
ringil
Guest
Well, I guess if you have to put some kind of spin on it.I think the losing side would have been the one with the energized base. I would have worried more about the election, had ACA been overturned.
I know this defeat has energized me!
In the meantime, the decision is still a little disconcertin.
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
C
chitowncath
Guest
This seems like a fairly Catholic ruling to me. Maybe the most right wing individuals in this forum should try the Catholic lense in this issue and see how it looks. And guessing about abortion or other outcomes is not directly impacted by this ruling, so don’t go there.
L
_L
Guest
I saw this coming years ago, The Bishops were far too gullible in believing that the Democrats would actually compromise their dogmas of abortion and contraception for all in a universal health care bill. I knew this was going to happen, maybe not in the bill itself but in elections down the line the democrats were going to weasel abortion and contraception funding into the law. I’m very upset the Bishops fell for the lies and the deception.
It baffles me how Roberts sold out on this issue, any person familiar with the concept of common sense could say straight away it is not constitutional. You cannot be forced into being a customer of a business by virtue of your mere existence under penalty of fine or prison time. And yet the court just ruled the opposite, that you are forced to buy a product from a private industry just by virtue of your existence. But instead Roberts had to contort the bill into a frame of mind where he could view it as a tax, which is absurd. The government now has the basis and legal authority to force you to do ANYTHING with your money, even the money they do not tax.
It baffles me how Roberts sold out on this issue, any person familiar with the concept of common sense could say straight away it is not constitutional. You cannot be forced into being a customer of a business by virtue of your mere existence under penalty of fine or prison time. And yet the court just ruled the opposite, that you are forced to buy a product from a private industry just by virtue of your existence. But instead Roberts had to contort the bill into a frame of mind where he could view it as a tax, which is absurd. The government now has the basis and legal authority to force you to do ANYTHING with your money, even the money they do not tax.
M
masondoggy
Guest
Question: Does anybody remember how much the fine (tax
) is for not buying insurance? Is it per person, per family? So say a family of 6, do they get fined for 6 people or just once as a family?
) is for not buying insurance? Is it per person, per family? So say a family of 6, do they get fined for 6 people or just once as a family?
A
adrift
Guest
But the Supreme Court says it is.
R
ringil
Guest
How much traction do you feel Romney’s criticism of this law, would have in the eyes of swing voters?
My guess is not much.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
This is incorrect. The USCCB did not support this legislation. They wanted to see health care reform (as I think we all do), but they could not support the bill because it did not have adequate protection for the unborn or conscience protection.
M
manualman
Guest
Obama made a solemn campaign promise not to raise taxes on the middle class (under IIRC $200k income combined).
The Supreme Court has ruled that the individual mandate (which will raise health care costs for all employed Americans) is legal ONLY because it is a tax (the only reason Roberts, the swing vote, voted to uphold).
Ergo, the Supreme Court has ruled that Obama is a liar who has broken his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. Make no mistake. This wasn’t a reluctant choice necessary to resolve a crisis (ala ‘read my lips’). This was Obama’s plan all along.
It would be one thing if the guy had the cajones to straight up admit that he planned to tax us more in order to provide wider health care coverage. But instead, he was as slippery a snake as every went to DC.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the individual mandate (which will raise health care costs for all employed Americans) is legal ONLY because it is a tax (the only reason Roberts, the swing vote, voted to uphold).
Ergo, the Supreme Court has ruled that Obama is a liar who has broken his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. Make no mistake. This wasn’t a reluctant choice necessary to resolve a crisis (ala ‘read my lips’). This was Obama’s plan all along.
It would be one thing if the guy had the cajones to straight up admit that he planned to tax us more in order to provide wider health care coverage. But instead, he was as slippery a snake as every went to DC.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Welcome to CAF!
I encourage you to stick around and get to know us before labeling us.
L
livnlern
Guest
I agree that the church leaders should have spoken out against Obama from the beginning. They allowed the idea of the social justice and unity he was supposed to stand for to get in the way of fighting against his open stance on abortion and other left wing policies.
I understand they can’t openly take political sides, but we all knew what Obama and his minions stood for before the last election. Now we’re reaping the harvest.
A
adrift
Guest
The Bishops would disagree that this is a “Catholic Ruling”
J
jay29
Guest
How does the ends justify the means, Catholic?
How is government charity, “charity”?
S
scipio337
Guest
Seriously? I guess that would be the reason for the “this decision is very disconcerting” portion, and a table flip emoticon.
I think it’s a horrible decision that deeply saddens me. I’m not calling it a “win”, but thank you for your gratuitous umbrage.
A
adrift
Guest
Do you consider yourself the swing vote. I don’t think so
J
jay29
Guest
Just for the fact that the ACA covers artificial contraception makes it intrinsically evil and not Catholic.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
There could be the possibility of an executive order of waivers from ObamaCare for 50 states:I keep hearing about how Romney has promised to repeal “Obamacare” on Day 1. Would he even have the authority to do that? Can a President just decide to repeal an act of Congress like that? I know he can veto it, but repealing it would seem to be different.
Maybe I’m just uneducated on how it all works.
campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/romney-and-obamacare-waivers/243076
Attorney says this can be done
conservativesamizdat.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/can-mitt-romney-waive-obamacare-via.html
Or through the Senate which has to be majority Republican, ObamaCare can be dismantled
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/republicans-health-care-repeal-options-reconciliation-filibuster-romney-obama.php
W
wynnejj
Guest
RomneyCare is about a state’s right to provide medical coverage at the state level. That is different from ceding that power to the federal level. Regardless, Mitt Romney is just about the worst case representative to make the case for that principle, though. I wouldn’t say hypocritical. But not a strong case.
- Status