jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (19 posts)

Obamacare ruling even bigger victory than anybody expected

  1. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 16 months ago

    1) Chief Justice John Roberts displays judicial temperament instead of conservative pandering. Victory.
    2)  Conservatives once again on the wrong side of history (Social Security, anyone?). Sad, but typical.
    3)  While we (including me) often fret that it doesn't really matter who is President, consider this victory and head to the voting booth every time with a well-prepared resolve to select the person or initiative that will move our country into a better future.

    The Obamacare ruling is an even bigger victory for the law—and the president—than anybody expected.

    1. ahorseback profile image56
      ahorsebackposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Lets see now , a better future huh ?   Taxes will rise from Obama Care  , watch and see , that's a given .   More and more people on the system  of an already depleted  Social security system = higher taxes . Ya , a better future !

      1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image85
        wba108@yahoo.composted 16 months ago in reply to this

        The obamacare ruling is an exercise of raw power without reference to common sense or the Constitution. I wholeheartedly agree with you that obamacare is a travesty, its a major step towards centralized government power and away from the individual liberty our country was founded on.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image87
          Quilligrapherposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          Good evening, Will. Nice to see you join in the discussion.

          While I truly respect your opinions and your right to express them, it appears you reached a conclusion about the Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell without really knowing very much about the what the case was all about. The plaintiffs argued that the IRS rule implementing individual tax credits did not comply with the language embedded in the act by Congress. The final ruling had nothing to do with common sense or the Constitution and even less about “raw power.”

          The Supreme Court described the basic issue as follows:
          “Petitioners challenged the IRS Rule in Federal District Court. The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that the Act unambiguously made tax credits available to individuals enrolled through a Federal Exchange. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Fourth Circuit viewed the Act as ambiguous, and deferred to the IRS’s interpretation under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837.”  {1}

          In presenting the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts pointed out, "This case is about whether the Act’s interlocking reforms apply equally in each State no matter who establishes the State’s Exchange. Specifically, the question presented is whether the Act’s tax credits are available in
          States that have a Federal Exchange."

          In a nutshell, the majority held that ambiguities in the text should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the overall objectives and purposes, expressed and implied, in the law as was intended by the Congress. The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Scalia, contends the ambiguities in the text should be interpreted literally even if this totally obstructs the expressed purpose intended by the Congress when it enacted the law.       

          Your opinions are always of interest to me, Will, but, in a discussion about this Supreme Court decision, partisan rhetoric about common sense, the Constitution, or “raw power” are, IMO, both irrelevant and pointless.

          It’s good to run into you again, Will. I can imagine that you have nothing but good things to say about Andrew Cuomo. big_smile
          {1} http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14 … 4_qol1.pdf  p.2
          {2} Ibid. P. 6

  2. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 16 months ago

    Article from Forbes:

    Key study on Obamacare 2015 premium rates is out annd you won't believe what's going to happen


    "One of the best sources of actual facts is the annual study done by the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform.

    Any self-respecting conservative knows all too well that McKinsey is immune from attack as an organization committed to presenting a left leaning political slant as it remains a bastion of business advice and a company that simply cannot be painted with a blue brush.

    Here are the bullet points of the study:

        - Despite the cries of the Obamacare bashers that insurance companies would leave the exchanges in droves once they discovered how much money they are losing , it turns out that competition and choice  are increasing as we head into 2015.
        - While 65 percent of existing policies will see an increase in premium costs for 2015, the median increase will be just 4 percent.
        - Cost of premiums for those being subsidized are all over the place with some likely to pay more and others likely to pay considerably less.


    "So, if you are all about the politics of being anti-Obamacare, you’ll want to simply pretend you never read this article as any rational individual will find it hard to continue to terrify the nation with predictions of fewer policies, smaller competition, and double-digit increases in premium rates.

    However, even if you are committed to bashing the ACA at all costs, do yourself a favor and go check out the policies available to you come November 15th. You are likely to find something to your liking at either a lower price or at a very small increase.

    Should you find such a policy, buy it and be secure in the knowledge that the next time you trash Obamacare nobody will have to know that you benefited personally from the program.

    It will be our little secret."

  3. ahorseback profile image56
    ahorsebackposted 16 months ago

    One finds it very interesting that in the present ,past and future  idealistic intellectual drivel of liberal mindset - That  one would NOT want a central government meddling in its pocket books , its own  health directives , its mandatory ......Anything's ! 

    And yet those who decry government intervention the most - will absolutely  take Obama-care as a freebie , Anytime !

    1. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      "intellectual drivel"

      Do you mean facts and reason peppered with imagination and the will to create positive forward movement?  lol

      1. ahorseback profile image56
        ahorsebackposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        A far,  far more positive movement WOULD have been if  the RE - regulation  of insurance companies AND   the health care Industry  were put  in place instead of putting the burden on the purchaser  again . for one thing .

  4. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 16 months ago

    I've never understood the right's angry opposition to universal health care.  The main objection seems to be that it will cost "me" something.  Yet the right likes to represent itself as the keeper of the religious flame in America.  Churches do provide many services to those in need, but they can't provide health care.  Why is this particular need not part of our command to help "the least of these"?

    1. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Eh, they'll get over it like the always do.  It's unfortunate that the uninformed, angry 30% of the population will seemingly delay progress until the end of time, but the key word is "delay," not "stop."  Conservatives are almost always on the wrong side of social change, and they cry and scream until whatever they fear comes to pass, then they realize their fears were unfounded.  Death panels, anyone?

  5. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 16 months ago

    I am happy for my taxes to go to making poor people healthy.  There are literally hundreds of other stupid things they could cut rather than healthcare to reduce the tax burden..

    1. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 16 months ago in reply to this

      Exactly. It's simply a matter of priorities.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

        Unfortunately, the priority is not to give charity so much as it is to force everyone else to do it, whether they agree or not.  Obama perhaps said it best when he talked about taxing wealth (not income, but wealth) because he knew better than the owner what to do with it.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 16 months ago in reply to this

          As I keep pointing out, we are all forced to pay for something we don't like.  I don't like paying for that immoral and stupid war perpetrated by that little man surrounded by narcissistic, sociopathic war mongers.

          Are we even?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

            Right.  So why not add more?  It is the way of the liberal, as much as religious control belongs to the conservative in this country - squeeze as much as  possible from the population because the politician knows better than the owners do how it should be spent.  It's why I like neither party and view them both as necessary evils, but also as something that must be limited as much as possible.

            (Did you notice I did not fill my post with emotional terms such as immoral, stupid, little man, narcissistic, sociopathic or war mongers?  It makes the poster so much more believable and acceptable when they don't simply rant from a built in, unreasoning, prejudice?)

            1. PrettyPanther profile image86
              PrettyPantherposted 16 months ago in reply to this

              I'm not sorry you find those terms to be "emotional."  War is that way, you know?  It's not just a matter of how much it cost in dollars; it is more a matter of what it cost humanity.  That is far more important, don't you think?

              By the way, I stand by the terms I used to describe--let's be specific--Bush (the little man), Cheney (the sociopath and war monger), and Rumsfeld (the narcissistic war monger).  History will not treat any of them kindly.  I hope history will also not treat kindly the rah-rah media and cowardly legislators who enabled such a foolish and immoral endeavor.

              But I digress.

              My point is that, while you view using taxpayer dollars to help fund Obamacare as stealing from you (apparently funding a war isn't stealing from you?), it is merely a different priority for use of our shared resources.  One that actually helps people.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                And of course you have the psych evaluations on all of those people, giving that diagnosis.  Or you've just grabbed some highly connotative terms in the hopes you can raise disgust in a reader. 

                Of course it helps people!  Giving charity always does!  Today, anyway, and the needs of our children and grandchildren as the country goes bankrupt is irrelevant.  I understand that.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  We shall see if your dire predictions come to pass.  Typically, historically, they do not.  Only time will tell.

                  With regards to the other diagnoses, I actually do have a psychology degree.  lol  Although I confess they are merely an educated opinion, to which I am entitled.  big_smile

                2. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 16 months ago in reply to this

                  By the way, it is not charity.  It is a policy decision implemented by representatives of the electorate.  Just like that costly and inhumane war. 

                  Personally, my values support the former and not the latter.  I'll continue to vote accordingly.