• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

"Obamacare"

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
""This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," a divided three-judge panel said."

http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-healthcare-law-171829777.html

I am excited for this to get to the Supreme Court of the United States. It appears this ruling is not specific enough. Did the panel write it this way on purpose? The question is: Is "Obamacare" Constitutional if the individual required to purchase the healthcare is not levied a penalty if they fail to purchase the mandated healthcare? I know, it begs the question, "what is the point in making a law that requires all individuals have insurance, while at the same time rendering the law without penalty if the individual decides to not have insurance?"

Like I stated, I look forward to this whole issue making its way to the Supreme Court of the United States.
 

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
""This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," a divided three-judge panel said."

http://news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-healthcare-law-171829777.html

I am excited for this to get to the Supreme Court of the United States. It appears this ruling is not specific enough. Did the panel write it this way on purpose? The question is: Is "Obamacare" Constitutional if the individual required to purchase the healthcare is not levied a penalty if they fail to purchase the mandated healthcare? I know, it begs the question, "what is the point in making a law that requires all individuals have insurance, while at the same time rendering the law without penalty if the individual decides to not have insurance?"

Like I stated, I look forward to this whole issue making its way to the Supreme Court of the United States.

As do I. I am also looking forward to November 7th 2012 with more delight everytime the moonbat messiah takes a vacation during a "crisis". It would be nice if all his leftist acolytes had a "kool aid" party along the lines of the last "great american" leftist messiah Jim Jones. It would be a lot of work cleaning up the mess but it would be worth it.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Ahem: "It's a stinging blow to Obama's signature legislative achievement, as most experts agree the requirement that Americans carry health insurance — or face tax penalties — is the foundation for other parts of the law."

The previous denouncement of obamacare by the federal court in Florida was dead-on accurate. This court seconds the motion, at least on the point upon which the other provisions hinge. The only way SCOTUS could overturn it would be via a Constitutionally-blind twisting of jurisprudence.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Striking down the individual mandate hamstrings the whole pos bill. It will go to the SC and they will affirm the 11th's decision. obooba can go back to being a ward healer on the South Side and tell his constituents in the crack houses who he used to be, come next Nov. This albatross will being hanging around his neck the whole time.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Striking down the individual mandate hamstrings the whole pos bill. It will go to the SC and they will affirm the 11th's decision. obooba can go back to being a ward healer on the South Side and tell his constituents in the crack houses who he used to be, come next Nov. This albatross will being hanging around his neck the whole time.

It depends on whether the finding will have anything to do with a mandate + penalty if the individual does not abide by the mandate. I see the bill standing after all of this is over.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I know, it begs the question, "what is the point in making a law that requires all individuals have insurance, while at the same time rendering the law without penalty if the individual decides to not have insurance?"

For one, while failure to comply may not be directly penalized, it can still be recorded and later used for denial of certain benefits, including military or government service...

Like I stated, I look forward to this whole issue making its way to the Supreme Court of the United States.

So do I, and I hope they throw the whole darn thing in the furnace where it belongs, as did the first federal court that ruled against it.
 

SourKraut

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
113
Location
Wisconsin
I'm guessing that some people on this fourm believe that they are entitled to health care at the expense of others. That whole idea seems pretty hypocritical to me, as this is a forum dedicated to an individual right. Why should some people be able to force others to pay their way? Are we not all created equal? Maybe that is the problem, equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Or, are some not as fit as others to compeat on a level field?
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I'm guessing that some people on this fourm believe that they are entitled to health care at the expense of others. That whole idea seems pretty hypocritical to me, as this is a forum dedicated to an individual right. Why should some people be able to force others to pay their way? Are we not all created equal? Maybe that is the problem, equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Or, are some not as fit as others to compeat on a level field?

Do you believe everyone's pension should be subject to reevaluation and curtailment at any given moment, that if a business, much less a country decides it's no longer in their best interests to pay what they promised to pay, those individuals who worked decades for that pension should be swept out into the streets, regardless of their age or ability to re-enter the workforce?

Are you aware of the legal concepts involving contracts?

The "level field", as you put it, consisted of a dismal selection rate (less than 20% of applicants), a 35% washout rate from basic, a further 30% washout rate from aviation training, and a further 50% attrition rate between that and retirement. That comes to just 4.55% of all initial applicants that made it through the hurdles to retirement. Keep in mind 100% of us joined, sweated, toiled, and teared as we buried our fallen friends (four in my case) while serving our country.

A pension was promised before I signed up. The promise was re-iterated throughout my time in service. It has been provided since I retired.

It's not enough to live on! I still have to work for a living to make ends meet. I still have a child for whom I'm saving up a college fund. I'd still like to earn enough money to buy some land so I can build a house instead of living in a one-bedroom apartment like I am now.

I hope you're getting the picture. I'm in the top 4.5% of the military, yet my "retirement" means "barely scraping by."
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
Maybe once again Obama got his states confused, perhaps he was again thinking of his 57 Islamic states, not realizing the constitution of our states doesn’t allow for such BS law.

He's first integration of some form of Shariah?
:eek:
 
Last edited:

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
I'm guessing that some people on this fourm believe that they are entitled to health care at the expense of others. That whole idea seems pretty hypocritical to me, as this is a forum dedicated to an individual right. Why should some people be able to force others to pay their way? Are we not all created equal? Maybe that is the problem, equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Or, are some not as fit as others to compeat on a level field?

Do you believe everyone's pension should be subject to reevaluation and curtailment at any given moment, that if a business, much less a country decides it's no longer in their best interests to pay what they promised to pay, those individuals who worked decades for that pension should be swept out into the streets, regardless of their age or ability to re-enter the workforce?

Are you aware of the legal concepts involving contracts?

The "level field", as you put it, consisted of a dismal selection rate (less than 20% of applicants), a 35% washout rate from basic, a further 30% washout rate from aviation training, and a further 50% attrition rate between that and retirement. That comes to just 4.55% of all initial applicants that made it through the hurdles to retirement. Keep in mind 100% of us joined, sweated, toiled, and teared as we buried our fallen friends (four in my case) while serving our country.

A pension was promised before I signed up. The promise was re-iterated throughout my time in service. It has been provided since I retired.

It's not enough to live on! I still have to work for a living to make ends meet. I still have a child for whom I'm saving up a college fund. I'd still like to earn enough money to buy some land so I can build a house instead of living in a one-bedroom apartment like I am now.

I hope you're getting the picture. I'm in the top 4.5% of the military, yet my "retirement" means "barely scraping by."

Since,
I think he's just talking about the healthcare law and I believe he's right. I'm not sure where you get your elaboration from unless this is continued on from some other thread? In any case, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying either, I'm just confused about where it all came from.
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Maybe once again Obama got his states confused, perhaps he was again thinking of his 57 Islamic states, not realizing the constitution of our states doesn’t allow for such BS law.

He's first integration of some form of Shariah?
:eek:

Well he did spend a few key formative years in the predominantly Muslim country of Indonesia...

Since,
I think he's just talking about the healthcare law and I believe he's right. I'm not sure where you get your elaboration from unless this is continued on from some other thread? In any case, I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying either, I'm just confused about where it all came from.

It's indeed a bit of cross-talk from another thread discussing yet another media nut's article about the possibility of changing existing benefits for military veterans and retirees. My point was that's a drop in the bucket compared to the far larger drains on our budget.
 
Top