toldailytopic: Did the Supreme Court make the right call over Obamacare?

[Iconoclast]

Most more-civilized countries have taxes. They generally have more taxes than we do, in fact. America is barbaric by comparison. For example, we have not signed onto the international criminal court, anti-mine conventions, or standards for children in prison (which the Supreme Court also addressed this week). We have capital punishment (most civilized countries have abolished); gun control (most countries have more); people in prison (most countries have less than we do); the list goes on and on. It IS time indeed that we became a more civilized country. Given Republican power, it will take far more time than it should-- and has already.

So the more taxes you pay the more civilized the society is how you see it?

So a court that doesn't recognize my rights I need to consent to, to be civilized?

So allowing murders, kidnappers and alike to live is civilized?

You are an affront to all that is Good and right... You have absolutely no morality... you call good evil and evil good. You are all that is wrong with America..

 

[Iconoclast]

Obamacare does nothing of the sort. It simply asks you to have or buy some kind of insurance. In fact it's biased towards the private insurance industry. Exactly what you'd expect as a republican alternative.

What if I don't want to pre pay for my healthcare needs? Because I may never need it. Because I take care of myself to the best of my ability. Why don't I have the right not to pre pay? It doesn't "SIMPLY ASK YOU" I compels you to do it. Or as Roberts says it can tax you.

You are a menace to all free people..

 

[Alate_One]

What if I don't want to pre pay for my healthcare needs? Because I may never need it. Because I take care of myself to the best of my ability. Why don't I have the right not to pre pay? It doesn't "SIMPLY ASK YOU" I compels you to do it. Or as Roberts says it can tax you.

You are a menace to all free people..

Because if you get hit by a car, the rest of us have to pay for you. You're incapacitated and can't tell anyone you don't want to be treated.

Now if you want to create legislation where there is a waiver you can sign and carry on your person that you are legally disallowed from any medical care that costs more than a certain amount and you must be allowed to die on the streets. I'd be perfectly fine with that. Otherwise odds are you'll end up using healthcare at one time or another and unable to pay for it on your own.

 

[Stripe]

Because if you get hit by a car, the rest of us have to pay for you.

Society should be built so people want to help those in need.

Instead the government insulates people from such an attitude by taxing them into oblivion and creating the illusion that "the system" will take care of emergency situations.

 

[bybee]

Because if you get hit by a car, the rest of us have to pay for you. You're incapacitated and can't tell anyone you don't want to be treated.

Now if you want to create legislation where there is a waiver you can sign and carry on your person that you are legally disallowed from any medical care that costs more than a certain amount and you must be allowed to die on the streets. I'd be perfectly fine with that. Otherwise odds are you'll end up using healthcare at one time or another and unable to pay for it on your own.

Lets add to that waiver 1. If you ride a motorcycle without a helmet and have an accident wherein you sustain a head trauma you agree to forgo treatment due to bull-headed stupidity. Then 2. If you take street drugs you agree that you realize beyond one and only one treatment option you are beyond hope. Etc.
I'd like to see a return to personal responsibility for the exercise of one's own free-will choices.

 

[Stripe]

I'd like to see a return to personal responsibility for the exercise of one's own free-will choices.

Then forget about writing into law a multitude of regulations and conditions. If a man wants coverage, he should write his own regulations and conditions and find a way to pay for them himself.

 

[bybee]

Then forget about writing into law a multitude of regulations and conditions. If a man wants coverage, he should write his own regulations and conditions and find a way to pay for them himself.

You bring up an interesting point. Perhaps we ought to have the freedom to contract with the Insurance company of our choice (this could include the government) for the services of our choice?
What an idea!

 

[Totton Linnet]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for June 28th, 2012 01:24 PM

toldailytopic: Did the Supreme Court make the right call over Obamacare?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

*
Americans pay as much tax as the Brits THEN they pay fat cat insurance companies for healthcare IF they can afford it and they get it IF the insurers don't cheat them.

C'mon Americans give dignity to the poor. Isn't healthcare a human dignity?

 

[Stripe]

this could include the government

Yeah, like anybody would choose to get service from them. :chuckle:

What an idea!

 

[Granite]

*
Americans pay as much tax as the Brits THEN they pay fat cat insurance companies for healthcare IF they can afford it and they get it IF the insurers don't cheat them.

C'mon Americans give dignity to the poor. Isn't healthcare a human dignity?

There really is a money-grubbiness to this that I can't sympathize with at all.

 

[Yorzhik]

It doesn't matter. The US was spending itself into oblivion before this burden was added to the pile.

 

[kmoney]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for June 28th, 2012 01:24 PM

toldailytopic: Did the Supreme Court make the right call over Obamacare?

I struggle to see how it is a tax.

 

[Iconoclast]

Lets add to that waiver 1. If you ride a motorcycle without a helmet and have an accident wherein you sustain a head trauma you agree to forgo treatment due to bull-headed stupidity. Then 2. If you take street drugs you agree that you realize beyond one and only one treatment option you are beyond hope. Etc.
I'd like to see a return to personal responsibility for the exercise of one's own free-will choices.

Also add if you are a HOMO and you get AIDS due to your homo behavior you are not eligible for treatment. If you do IV drugs and get AIDS you don't get treatment.

Oh that will never happen since this is all about a society in which there are no consequences for your actions.

 

[Iconoclast]

Because if you get hit by a car, the rest of us have to pay for you. You're incapacitated and can't tell anyone you don't want to be treated.

Now if you want to create legislation where there is a waiver you can sign and carry on your person that you are legally disallowed from any medical care that costs more than a certain amount and you must be allowed to die on the streets. I'd be perfectly fine with that. Otherwise odds are you'll end up using healthcare at one time or another and unable to pay for it on your own.

Ah another false premise of the left. The idea that YOU have to pay for me if I get sick. Once the left got into law that people cannot be denied non life threatening treatments. The cost went up for all health care. YOU are responsible for your OWN healthcare and any debts incurred by it NOT ME.

This is the communeitarianism of the left. The WE are all in this together, so you don't have the right to not go along with our evil.

 

[Stripe]

I struggle...

We know.

 

[Iconoclast]

*
Americans pay as much tax as the Brits THEN they pay fat cat insurance companies for healthcare IF they can afford it and they get it IF the insurers don't cheat them.

C'mon Americans give dignity to the poor. Isn't healthcare a human dignity?

Giving people services that are paid for by stealing from others doesn't give dignity to the poor. Are you really that stupid? It only allows them to continue to be poor in comfort.

Insurance is just pre paying for services because people are afraid. The ONLY way to REFORM healthcare is to make insurance for healthcare ILLEGAL. This then eliminates the pre pay and so people will know the cost of the services. Those with the cheapest and best services for the money will survive and those with expensive bad care will fail. Cost will be controlled by the consumer of health care the only way to do it. All other ways fail because they do not deal with the root cause of the high cost of healthcare.

 

[HisServant]

Roberts basically threw it back at the voters in his decision.

He is basically saying, "Hey, you elected this guys that passed this bill through deception" if the public his happy being hood winked than they deserve what they got.. if they aren't, vote the lying bastards out and repeal it yourselves.

 

[Granite]

Giving people services that are paid for by stealing from others doesn't give dignity to the poor. Are you really that stupid? It only allows them to continue to be poor in comfort.

Insurance is just pre paying for services because people are afraid. The ONLY way to REFORM healthcare is to make insurance for healthcare ILLEGAL. This then eliminates the pre pay and so people will know the cost of the services. Those with the cheapest and best services for the money will survive and those with expensive bad care will fail. Cost will be controlled by the consumer of health care the only way to do it. All other ways fail because they do not deal with the root cause of the high cost of healthcare.

How do you suppose people will "know" what a procedure will cost? What about variables in any given operation or procedure? What about unexpected complications? What about the fact that insurance companies create a competitive environment already?:bang:

 

[Alate_One]

I struggle to see how it is a tax.

The mandate is enforced by a penalty is in the tax code and it's collected by the internal revenue service. It's a tax in all but name, and it wasn't named one for political purposes.

 

[chickenman]

Yesterday's decision showed that at least two of the justices (Kennedy and Roberts) acted in a non-partisan manner. That was actually refreshing to see.

Explain to me how this works: It was found to be unconstitutional under the commerce clause yet constitutional under the tax clause. But...doesn't something only need to be shown to be unconstitutional according to one thing...for it to be unconstitutional?