Looks like this healthcare law may be toast

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I gave you some content and you passed it by. I think we have YOUR number.

WE? What, you got a crowd inside your head? Or are you just one of those limp-dick liberals who has to hide his pansy-ass in group think bullshit?

Speak for yourself.... go ahead, you can do it.

Man, you really are utterly incapable of presenting a coherent well thought argument rather than just short nasty 10th grade attacks, aren't you?

Blah, blah, blah. Go protest in front of one of Al Gore's mansions. Maybe he'll throw you a buck if you don't defecate on his new car.


Well true to form, (1) you are incompetent at even the simple act of quoting the person you want to crap on verbally -- LOL .. GOOD JOB! and (2) you just can't elevate the discourse above the 7th grade level, can you? (I had you at 10th grade before but clearly that was a case of grade inflation).

Rave on, MacDuff! ... You're a fine example of tea-bagging at its height.

[jsteele]

jsteele wrote:I'm actually going to go out on a limb here and say that the Court won't overturn the law. So, let's wait for the ruling and see who is gloating then.

Though, I should also add that I actually don't like the Affordable Care Act. So, I'm kind of ambivalent about this whole thing.

I apparently am pretty secure out on my limb. So, who is gloating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What almost all of the fools gloating over the probably/possible demise of the Aff. Healthcare Act do not understand is that there was unquestioned, indisputable, unanimous agreement among all the Justices and all counsel yesterday that Congress absolutely has the right to mandate health insurance as a condition of receiving health care.

The argument was all about the timing of when it can be required, with the so-called "conservatives" saying you can't force people to buy when they're young & healthy and don't need health care, but you can force them to buy it at the "point of sale" as a condition to receiving health care.

IOW, when you show up sick or grievously injured you can be forced to buy insurance before you're treated, only you'll be doing it from a high risk pool at wildly inflated prices compared to what you'd have paid if you bought it earlier along w/ everyone else mandated to have insurance before you need it.

So the smart alecks are completely missing the economic and systemic point and their gloating "big brother" attacks on Obama are utterly misplaced because there is no question (per the Court yesterday & counsel) that it is Constitutional to require anyone who wants health care to have health insurance.

I doubt that 1/2 of 1% of the haters have a clue about that (the level of ignorance in this country about the mandate and the health care system as a whole is just staggering to see).

None of this type of discussion by educated, intellectual, well-to-do DCUM posters, nor the Obamacare law itself, changes one simple fact:

NO HEALTH INSURANCE = CANNOT AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mandating somebody to purchase insurance coverage who cannot afford it doesn't change anything for them except add hundreds or thousands of dollars to their tax bill and they STILL GET NO INSURANCE BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD IT!

GET IT?

NO INSURANCE = $750+ tax penalty AND STILL NO INSURANCE. Just more poor.

This is an abomination.

[Anonymous]

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

jsteele wrote:I'm actually going to go out on a limb here and say that the Court won't overturn the law. So, let's wait for the ruling and see who is gloating then.

Though, I should also add that I actually don't like the Affordable Care Act. So, I'm kind of ambivalent about this whole thing.

I apparently am pretty secure out on my limb. So, who is gloating?

I don't always agree with you, Jeff. But I am so happy that you got this one spot-on! Didn't know you were a shot-caller!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What almost all of the fools gloating over the probably/possible demise of the Aff. Healthcare Act do not understand is that there was unquestioned, indisputable, unanimous agreement among all the Justices and all counsel yesterday that Congress absolutely has the right to mandate health insurance as a condition of receiving health care.

The argument was all about the timing of when it can be required, with the so-called "conservatives" saying you can't force people to buy when they're young & healthy and don't need health care, but you can force them to buy it at the "point of sale" as a condition to receiving health care.

IOW, when you show up sick or grievously injured you can be forced to buy insurance before you're treated, only you'll be doing it from a high risk pool at wildly inflated prices compared to what you'd have paid if you bought it earlier along w/ everyone else mandated to have insurance before you need it.

So the smart alecks are completely missing the economic and systemic point and their gloating "big brother" attacks on Obama are utterly misplaced because there is no question (per the Court yesterday & counsel) that it is Constitutional to require anyone who wants health care to have health insurance.

I doubt that 1/2 of 1% of the haters have a clue about that (the level of ignorance in this country about the mandate and the health care system as a whole is just staggering to see).

None of this type of discussion by educated, intellectual, well-to-do DCUM posters, nor the Obamacare law itself, changes one simple fact:

NO HEALTH INSURANCE = CANNOT AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mandating somebody to purchase insurance coverage who cannot afford it doesn't change anything for them except add hundreds or thousands of dollars to their tax bill and they STILL GET NO INSURANCE BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD IT!

GET IT?

NO INSURANCE = $750+ tax penalty AND STILL NO INSURANCE. Just more poor.

This is an abomination.

If your facts are correct, I agree that it would be an abomination. But my understanding is that the law provides help for those who cannot afford insurance, and that it exempts people from the penalty for a number of reasons, including inability to afford insurance.