Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CMatt25 said:
I find it sad when Christians debate whether it’s 30 million+ of His people in the US who are uninsured or whether it’s 12 million and only 4 - 6% of the population. In either case it’s still entirely too many left behind by individuals, faith based groups, and the free enterprise private sector. This is why I have not a doubt in my mind, believing in my Christian faith, that Jesus would welcome additional help if offered. Including government offering to play a role to try to help ensure that all have access to affordable, adequate health care. If that’s not the Catholic faith, that’s fine. But it’s mine. Peace.
Click to expand...
I guess if you say Christian enough you can convince yourself of anything.
 
CMatt25 said:
I find it sad when Christians debate whether it’s 30 million+ of His people in the US who are uninsured or whether it’s 12 million and only 4 - 6% of the population. In either case it’s still entirely too many left behind by individuals, faith based groups, and the free enterprise private sector. This is why I have not a doubt in my mind, believing in my Christian faith, that Jesus would welcome additional help if offered. Including government offering to play a role to try to help ensure that all have access to affordable, adequate health care. If that and universal healthcare are not part of the Catholic faith or not a high priority, that’s fine. But it’s a big part of mine. Peace.
Click to expand...
I find it sad that some people are so willing to sell out and over look abortion and other immorality just because some people do not have health insurance.
 
The new tax is less than the cost of Health insurance the primary people who decline to get insurance toady(the young and Healthy.) will probably decline to get it under the new law.- And under the new law there is no reason for them to get insurance. if they get they sick they just sign up and their pre-existing conditions are covered.

I am kind of amused at the new Democrat Talking point- derisevely referring to these people as" free riders" If not for the “free rider” vote a Democrat would have a hard time getting elected to anything
 
CMatt25 said:
I’m not sure what you mean by this.
Click to expand...
It means you’re willing to overlook other, more immediate immorality, as well as bankrupting the country and the largest tax increase on the poor/middle class just because you want health insurance for a small sliver of the population.
 
estesbob said:
The new tax is less than the cost of Health insurance the primary people who decline to get insurance toady(the young and Healthy.) will probably decline to get it under the new law.- And under the new law there is no reason for them to get insurance. if they get they sick they just sign up and their pre-existing conditions are covered.

I am kind of amused at the new Democrat Talking point- derisevely referring to these people as" free riders" If not for the “free rider” vote a Democrat would have a hard time getting elected to anything
Click to expand...
The problem with this tax is that it is not more than insurance premiums. It is cheaper to pay the tax than to get enrolled.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
The problem with this tax is that it is not more than insurance premiums. It is cheaper to pay the tax than to get enrolled.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And as I said there is absolutely no incentive to get insurance as you can sign up anytime regardless of how sick you are. For example I drop my coverage and a couple of years later find out I need bypass surgery-no problem-the insurance company has to cover me even knowing Im about to hit them with $150,000 in charges
 
estesbob said:
Exactly. And as I said there is absolutely no incentive to get insurance as you can sign up anytime regardless of how sick you are. For example I drop my coverage and a couple of years later find out I need bypass surgery-no problem-the insurance company has to cover me even knowing Im about to hit them with $150,000 in charges
Click to expand...
In my mind this is the biggest reason why I cannot support the bill. It goes against the premise of insurance and will most likely drive up costs.

I find it unconcienable that people who consider themselves on the side of the poor support the bill because of this.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
It means you’re willing to overlook other, more immediate immorality, as well as bankrupting the country and the largest tax increase on the poor/middle class just because you want health insurance for a small sliver of the population.
Click to expand...
Oh ok. While you don’t know what I overlook as I weigh all matters, I just wondered because the poster said “guess if you say Christian enough…” so I just wasn’t sure if he was implying I wasn’t one. Thanks though for clarifyng what Sam meant.
 
CMatt25 said:
Oh ok. While you don’t know what I overlook as I weigh all matters, I just wondered because the poster said “guess if you say Christian enough…” so I just wasn’t sure if he was implying I wasn’t one. Thanks though for clarifyng what Sam meant.
Click to expand...
In other words, you think genocide is OK as long as a canidate promises health insurance for a small sliver of the population.
 
estesbob said:
I am kind of amused at the new Democrat Talking point- derisevely referring to these people as" free riders" If not for the “free rider” vote a Democrat would have a hard time getting elected to anything
Click to expand...
I am amused at the term “free rider” in a different context. A “rider” in insurance is optional coverage added to a base policy. A “free rider” in this context is additional coverage without additional cost.
 
wynnejj said:
I am amused at the term “free rider” in a different context. A “rider” in insurance is optional coverage added to a base policy. A “free rider” in this context is additional coverage without additional cost.
Click to expand...
Romney should call Obama on this, IMHO.

We’re still in the same place that we were before the bill became law. People are not buying into insurance.

We needed to make the penalty severe enough that people would be forced into buying insurance.

Or else, as estesbob put it, people will take the small slap on the wrist every year, get a serious illness and then buy insurance and prestent them with a bill.

This goes against the premise of buying insurance and what it should be used for. I really wish some people would read up on what insurance actually is.
 
wynnejj said:
One judge comes up with a trick to redefine a penalty ( as established by legislators and treated as such in all preceding court proceedings and treated as such by SCOTUS itself until the illusion was proposed) as a quasi-tax when you look at it one way, then it is OK for those looking for a specific outcome to agree with the illusion to achieve the desired outcome.

Why is it that so much effort is made to rationalize the means to justify the desired outcome?

Why is that so much effort is made to put a pretty dress on a gorilla so that we can pretend that we’re looking at a pretty girl in a dress?

Obamacare is NOT the issue. The issue is judicial overreach.
Click to expand...
I don’t see any ***overreach. ***I believe, like Joe 5859 said. Roberts, was just trying to do right by his job. It’s not his place to run interference for our political folies. We hold elections, and cast our votes. The concequences are ours to live with.
 
Mickey_Finn said:
I don’t see any ***overreach. ***I believe, like Joe 5859 said. Roberts, was just trying to do right by his job. It’s not his place to run interference for our political folies. We hold elections, and cast our votes. The concequences are ours to live with.
Click to expand...
John Roberts was originally with the four dissenters to overturn the entire law. Then he changed, if he thought it was a tax along, why did he not originally vote with the liberal Justices?
 
Democrat Kissell bucks party on votes, won’t back Obama
Democratic U.S. Rep. Larry Kissell, whose rural North Carolina district has become even more Republican, is bucking his party again in two high-profile congressional votes.
Click to expand...
Last week, Kissell was one of 17 Democrats who voted with Republicans to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt of Congress. And next week, he plans to vote with them again to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care law.
Click to expand...
“I’ve heard from hundreds and hundreds of people from my district about their opposition to the health care law,” Kissell told the Observer Monday. “I voted against it originally and I will vote to repeal it.”
Click to expand...
Kissell also said he doesn’t plan to endorse Obama for re-election and isn’t sure he’ll attend his party’s national convention in Charlotte.
Click to expand...
charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/02/3358669/democrat-kissell-bucks-party-on.html#storylink=cpy
 
I pretty sure Jesus wouldn’t want us to steal ( tax ) ppl to get this failure of a healthcare bill.

Ironically all the worthless libs that voted for this… aren’t on it. They should be forced to get the same ****** care the we will be subjected to.
CMatt25 said:
While I don’t think the Affordable Care Act went far enough, I agreed with the decision. Better than the status quo. Jesus wants the sick to get care. And having adequate health care includes more than a trip to the ER.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top