Fed judge rules health insurance reform unconstitutional

@H2O MAN,

Are you flocking ican again squirt?

@parados,

Another bird has joined the flock

0 Replies

The frustration with Obama's poor performance has manifested itself as a mental illness here on A2K.
One can just feel the pain and suffering progressive liberal democrats are experiencing.

Obamacare is unconstitutional.

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

The frustration with Obama's poor performance has manifested itself as a mental illness here on A2K.
One can just feel the pain and suffering progressive liberal democrats are experiencing.

Are you a telepathical psychiatric? Specialised in hydrocephaly according to you moniker, I suppose.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Same here. That's why I was trying to make a distinction between 'auto insurance' and liability insurance. Apparantly, the distinction was not noteworthy.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

... not noteworthy.

We must learn how to post in large, bold letters in color. And post repeatedly. Then, perhaps, we will be noteworthy.
You, Roger, are a meekling.

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Your mental illness is duly noted.

0 Replies

I am not sure whether this forum has covered Judge Hudson's conflict of interest. At the time HC reform was being considered in congress, Hudson owned a sizeable interest in a conservative PR firm that was paid to fight the reform effort. It is hard to understand why Hudson was not forced to recuse himself from the recent case.

-- http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/anti-hcr-judge-should-have-recused-himself

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
The Democrats decided for us what the level should be, and then told us to shut up and trust them.

Okay - so which Republican politician wanted to have a sober and reasoned debate regarding what level of service should be provided? What steps did they take to advance that debate? I must have missed that part, because all I seem to remember are never-ending cries of 'Socialism!' 'Death Panels!' and other such nonsense emerging from your political and media leaders. Not a single person on your side was willing to compromise on anything or have the debate you say we SHOULD have had.

Let us know, and maybe your criticisms would be valid. They would have more weight if all of us didn't just live through that time, the time in which the Republicans DID do it; they DID do everything they could to keep any honest debate about reform from happening. On every level.

The reason why the Republicans did this is obvious: no matter what passed, ANYTHING passing was a win for Obama. And they couldn't have that. So they bet the farm on blocking everything, and they almost made it. But not quite, and now they are stuck with a bill that could have been significantly more Conservative than it already is.

Cycloptichorn

I've been down similar roads with you in the past Cyclo and I know that no matter how I respond you will return with something to the effect of:

"You know that's a lie, you greedy bastard. Why don't you crawl back inside that Ayn Rand novel."

I'm going to answer your question, however, but it will be the end of my discussion with you on this topic. Make of that what you will, I really don't care.

Are you ready?

Here we go......

Read this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704117304575138071192342664.html

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

Quote:
Glad to see you're following as I'm hoping that Roger and I will eventually get Frank to answer where exactly he gets his ideas on Republican beliefs.

Mostly from this board. That may be my big mistake!

Catching on, good for you! Please don't mind my friend H2O, he's somewhat abrupt but otherwise a good guy.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

To my knowledge H2O is no telepath and no medic of any kind, let alone a psychiatrist specializing in hydrocephalic patients. His trade or profession is irrelevant - he still has a perfect right to express his political and other views online. As do you - btw, glad to see you - but may I add you're flatly contradicting in that post your proclaimed citation from the Bible about those beati pauperes spiritu Smile

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

You're not a player here - you said so yourself earlier on this thread. Mind moving back behind your own 20-yard-line, you're in the way Smile

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

There was nothing specific in the piece you linked to at all. No specific politicians were named as having forwarded any argument at all, and certainly not ones that forwarded the point you said that 'should' have been forwarded. The most that the piece says is that Boehner and Cantor requested a meeting with Obama and didn't get one. Big whoop. Those same two guys were chanting 'Socialism! Death Panels!' non-stop for months to the media and doing everything they could to whip the Tea Partiers into a frenzy.

You can accept what I have to say on the issue or not, I really don't give a ****. You know what the truth of the matter is as well as anyone else here. I understand that it's frustrating that your revisionist history isn't accepted as true by most, but you're addressing an audience which is at least as educated as you on these matters - if not far more - and simple rhetorical tricks like this don't work.

You didn't answer the question, but instead sort of pussied out. This is something of a par for the course for you, Finn. You like to throw out invective but retreat from the field the minute you are seriously questioned on anything, likely because you simply don't have the chops to keep up in a fact-based argument.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

What? No reference to John Galt?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What? No reference to John Galt?

You preemptively mentioned it for me. Why waste the time telling you what you already know?

Don't blame me for that, by the way - you're the one who got all teary-eyed after Obama got elected and went on a while about how you were one of those producers, and how you would like to go Galt, so to speak.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Obamacare is unconstitutional.

The phrase is so tired without any real meaning behind it. Obamacare is simply a word made up by tea partiers and the like. And no one can really say why the mandate part of the Affordable Health Care Act is "unconstitutional." They just throw out the word without explaining how they arrived at the conclusion.

They say it is unconstitutional to make citizens buy anything. In the time of George Washington, able bodied male citizens were made to provide themselves with guns and all manner of supplies in case they would be needed in the militia. We are made to buy insurance if we want to drive a car. We are made to buy license for all kind of things. The mandate part of this legislation, which is the only part being considered as unconstitutional, was advocated by insurance companies and republicans to help pay for the health care cost of the health care bill. The rest of the bill will still be there if this gets struck down. According to most polls that I have seen, people want most of the Health Care Affordable Act like the pre-existing conditions. So we will have a the Bill but with a large part of how it was going to be paid for taken out. Talk about taking out your nose to spite your face.

1 Reply

@revelette,

You and others fail to see that a law which has been stripped of its funding mechanisms is not sustainable. This is probably because you are conditioned to disassociate government programs from cost.

Or you understand that with the mandate gone, it will be private insurance that will first suffer. Private insurers were definately approving of the mandate because without it they were to be forced to provide increased benefits without increased revenues...a sure path to collapse. As it is the Administration reneged on it's deal and lowered the penalties associated with the mandate (thus making it easier to ignore), and there is no widepsread consensus that the revenue which is estimated to be produced by the mandate will be sufficient to cover the increase in benefits.

Without private insurance, what is referred to as Obamacare can not function as designed.

This doesn't bother those who have wanted a socialized healthcare system from the very beginning.

1 Reply

In the past two days, I have discovered how well health insurance has been reformed from a personal standpoint. My Part D (prescription drug coverage) went from $27 to $58, with a more restrictive formulary. I got an ad from AARP today. Their best plan is now $89/month, and they never had the formulary that Aetna did from the beginning. Just working from memory, the price on AARP was in the mid thirties, so both have more than doubled. I can no longer afford it, as the cheapest policies have the highest allowable deductable, and cover little more that the generics that Walmart sells for $4.00/month.

Thanks for the reform, guys. I knew you were claiming to finance Obamacare by savings from Medicare, but I had no idea how much you were going to save that way.

Before anybody mentions it, yes, I am aware of the penalties for not buying Part D coverage.

1 Reply

@roger,

Um....

Since most of the features from the health care reform don't take effect until 2012, I think you're placing the blame at the wrong place.

Our premium for family coverage had a huge increase last year, before anything was signed into law. Just a (comparatively) modest increase this year.

1 Reply

Fed judge rules health insurance reform unconstitutional

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know