Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-03-2012, 11:24 PM
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
And another thing. Car insurance laws are state laws. The federal government has absolutely nothing to do with auto ins and vehicle registration laws other than constitutionally granting that power to the states. Which is Romneycare slipped through the cracks. IIRC Massachusetts now has the highest premiums in the country.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes germanyt's post
26-03-2012, 11:28 PM
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
(26-03-2012 11:24 PM)germanyt Wrote:  And another thing. Car insurance laws are state laws. The federal government has absolutely nothing to do with auto ins and vehicle registration laws other than constitutionally granting that power to the states. Which is Romneycare slipped through the cracks. IIRC Massachusetts now has the highest premiums in the country.
You realize all this bubble talk nonsense you keep spouting is utterly
meaningless right? If the republicans would have backed the single
payer system, then everyone would have been better off from a health stand point, and a fiscal standpoint.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2012, 11:29 PM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2012 11:34 PM by germanyt.)
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
(26-03-2012 11:22 PM)Antirepublican Wrote:  
(26-03-2012 11:15 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Facepalm.jpg

Noone is required to buy car insurance. Its only required to register a vehicle. If you don't own a car noone is fining you for it.


And I laugh at people thinking any health car law is a good one when it costs 2 trillion dollars. I might need to post this over at Worthy Christian where at least they make fiscal sense.
That is absolutely absurd. BUBBLE BOY!

Guess what? You own a human body, which is akin to the car in that analogy.

You are just pulling numbers out of a dark smelly orifice.

Go ahead, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. You and your cult friends can all get into your nice warm bubble and pretend your vision of reality makes a lick of sense.


EDIT: How can you even consider uttering the words 'fiscal sense' when you are so gung-ho about Ron Paul?

I'm not sure if I should even bother replying to you so I guess I won't.

(26-03-2012 11:28 PM)Antirepublican Wrote:  
(26-03-2012 11:24 PM)germanyt Wrote:  And another thing. Car insurance laws are state laws. The federal government has absolutely nothing to do with auto ins and vehicle registration laws other than constitutionally granting that power to the states. Which is Romneycare slipped through the cracks. IIRC Massachusetts now has the highest premiums in the country.
You realize all this bubble talk nonsense you keep spouting is utterly
meaningless right? If the republicans would have backed the single
payer system, then everyone would have been better off from a health stand point, and a fiscal standpoint.

What republicans do is no concern to me other than to stay current on issues. I'm a libertarian. Don't like it? Go eat a dick. You're beyond the point of reason and your username says all there I need to know about you.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2012, 11:32 PM
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
I thought you were leaving to hang out with people of your intellectual level over at the christian corner, or wtf ever its called.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2012, 11:44 PM
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
It depends on the exact coverage but for the average family, Massachusetts does have the highest health care premiums and had them BEFORE Mitt Romney passed his Health Care Bill. Nothing in that regard has changed but it keeps being spewed as if the Health Care Mandate caused that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2012, 11:10 AM
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
(26-03-2012 11:44 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It depends on the exact coverage but for the average family, Massachusetts does have the highest health care premiums and had them BEFORE Mitt Romney passed his Health Care Bill. Nothing in that regard has changed but it keeps being spewed as if the Health Care Mandate caused that.


So then what was really the point of the law? It's wildley expensive to the state and if premiums aren't down then all it's doing is forcing people to buy products they might not really want. So now instead of ignoring medical collection notices the people who are now on an insurance policy will just be broke from paying premiums. The cheapest group plan through my work is over 700 dollars a month to cover my entire family. I just can't afford it. I'd literally be homeless if tomorrow I was forced to pay for it. And if I don't then they'll just take my tax return as a penalty. Double fucked. No insurance and now no tax return. All the while they hand out waivers to certain organizations and penalties on companies are much cheaper than providing coverage to employees. The car dealership I used to work at employs around 200 people. When the mandate kicks in and fines start being given the owner is dropping all group policies because it's significantly cheaper to pay the fines than the insane amount they will have to cover under the law. So what happens is now those people will be forced to seek non group insurance policies. Policies that are in no way getting cheaper as long as ins companies can't deny preexisting conditions. People have made the connection between car insurance and Obamacare but what kind of car insurance lets you purchase a policy and file a claim AFTER the wreck has occured? None. Because it would drive them out of business without doubling premiums. This law is not only economically and fiscally attrocious but it's unconstitutional and we should all be hoping it's overturned. Not for partisan reasons but because it's a bad law. It's clear we need a health care overhaul but not necessarily a health insurance company overhaul.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2012, 11:35 AM
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
(27-03-2012 11:10 AM)germanyt Wrote:  
(26-03-2012 11:44 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  It depends on the exact coverage but for the average family, Massachusetts does have the highest health care premiums and had them BEFORE Mitt Romney passed his Health Care Bill. Nothing in that regard has changed but it keeps being spewed as if the Health Care Mandate caused that.


So then what was really the point of the law? It's wildley expensive to the state and if premiums aren't down then all it's doing is forcing people to buy products they might not really want. So now instead of ignoring medical collection notices the people who are now on an insurance policy will just be broke from paying premiums. The cheapest group plan through my work is over 700 dollars a month to cover my entire family. I just can't afford it. I'd literally be homeless if tomorrow I was forced to pay for it. And if I don't then they'll just take my tax return as a penalty. Double fucked. No insurance and now no tax return. All the while they hand out waivers to certain organizations and penalties on companies are much cheaper than providing coverage to employees. The car dealership I used to work at employs around 200 people. When the mandate kicks in and fines start being given the owner is dropping all group policies because it's significantly cheaper to pay the fines than the insane amount they will have to cover under the law. So what happens is now those people will be forced to seek non group insurance policies. Policies that are in no way getting cheaper as long as ins companies can't deny preexisting conditions. People have made the connection between car insurance and Obamacare but what kind of car insurance lets you purchase a policy and file a claim AFTER the wreck has occured? None. Because it would drive them out of business without doubling premiums. This law is not only economically and fiscally attrocious but it's unconstitutional and we should all be hoping it's overturned. Not for partisan reasons but because it's a bad law. It's clear we need a health care overhaul but not necessarily a health insurance company overhaul.
You are worried about being homeless and you are voting for Ron Paul?

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2012, 11:39 AM
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
(27-03-2012 11:35 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(27-03-2012 11:10 AM)germanyt Wrote:  So then what was really the point of the law? It's wildley expensive to the state and if premiums aren't down then all it's doing is forcing people to buy products they might not really want. So now instead of ignoring medical collection notices the people who are now on an insurance policy will just be broke from paying premiums. The cheapest group plan through my work is over 700 dollars a month to cover my entire family. I just can't afford it. I'd literally be homeless if tomorrow I was forced to pay for it. And if I don't then they'll just take my tax return as a penalty. Double fucked. No insurance and now no tax return. All the while they hand out waivers to certain organizations and penalties on companies are much cheaper than providing coverage to employees. The car dealership I used to work at employs around 200 people. When the mandate kicks in and fines start being given the owner is dropping all group policies because it's significantly cheaper to pay the fines than the insane amount they will have to cover under the law. So what happens is now those people will be forced to seek non group insurance policies. Policies that are in no way getting cheaper as long as ins companies can't deny preexisting conditions. People have made the connection between car insurance and Obamacare but what kind of car insurance lets you purchase a policy and file a claim AFTER the wreck has occured? None. Because it would drive them out of business without doubling premiums. This law is not only economically and fiscally attrocious but it's unconstitutional and we should all be hoping it's overturned. Not for partisan reasons but because it's a bad law. It's clear we need a health care overhaul but not necessarily a health insurance company overhaul.

You are worried about being homeless and you are voting for Ron Paul?



What do you care? You don't appear to know anything about Ron Paul.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2012, 11:55 AM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2012 11:58 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
(27-03-2012 11:39 AM)germanyt Wrote:  
(27-03-2012 11:35 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  You are worried about being homeless and you are voting for Ron Paul?



What do you care? You don't appear to know anything about Ron Paul.


He clearly won't win, so I really don't care. I know about his economic propositions, and as I have said before, they are very isolationist. Now, you can get in an argument and be defensive at the fact that I criticized your voting choice, but only know that I am a political moderate, and don't care about his Libertarianism, his campaign promises, or his ridiculous idea that the states should decide a good portion of law debates.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2012, 12:00 PM
RE: Are we taking bets on SCOTUS decision on Obamacare?
(27-03-2012 11:55 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(27-03-2012 11:39 AM)germanyt Wrote:  What do you care? You don't appear to know anything about Ron Paul.



He clearly won't win, so I really don't care. I know about his economic propositions, and as I have said before, they are very isolationist. Now, you can get in an argument and be defensive at the fact that I criticized your voting choice, but only know that I am a political moderate, and don't care about his Libertarianism, his campaign promises, or his ridiculous idea that the states should decide a good portion of law debates.



But you didn't criticize my voting choice. You suggest that I'm unaware of my candidates position. So unless you can explain to me why Ron Paul will make me homeless then why not just keep quiet? K buddy.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: