Devil's Advocate: What is wrong with the ACA? [Archive] - Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums

BPTactical

09-21-2013, 06:05

You gotta lay off the Purple Pony powder before bedtime there Ridge.

A-the Gov has no right to mandate an individual to purchase a product.
B-the Gov has no right to interject itself into a Dr/patient relationship.
C-the Gov has no right deciding what care an individual shall receive.
D-as already proven, it is a job killer.
E-expense:-the cost associated with the program have gone from IIRC 45 mil projected to over 3 billion and will likely go up from there.
F-"you can keep your current health plan and Dr." a lie that is already coming to fruition.
G- kills free market competition in healthcare which is critical to progress in the medical field.
H- the Gov has no right to limit what an individual can earn, Dr salaries are capped under the ACA.
I-expense-millions have received notice from their current carrier that premiums will increase 40-120%.
J- administrators have no place in deciding who shall receive what treatment and when "death panels" (a reality)
K- maybe I missed it, but I don't recall ever seeing where healthcare is a "Right".

As already noted, if this is such a wonderful thing, why have so many attempted to be waived exempt or receive subsidy for it?

Let's look back to how it was implemented.
A-behind closed doors(but this is "the most transparent administration" isn't it?)
B- "you have to pass it to see what's in it."
C-back door dealings to get support and enough votes to pass it (Nebraska and Louisiana come to mind)
D-as we have seen so well in our state with other legislation, the elected representatives did not consider their constituents input.
E- a SCOTUS judge was clearly leveraged into ruling in favor of it (unclear as to exactly how but it is clear Roberts had a sudden change of heart)

Ridge

09-21-2013, 06:46

Before I start to list the bad stuffs.. how about why are the folks who passed, signed this into the law exempted? Why some of the largest of Obamacare supporters including the unions are demanding to be exempted?

They aren't exempt. Originally, they didn't have to join the healthcare exchange, but an amendment to the bill makes it so that they are now part of it, just like everyone else.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Federal government has the ability to force you to buy a product, or face a financial penalty?

They say that they do, as it falls under the insterstate commerce clause. You can argue that it also falls under the government's requirement to provide for the national welfare.

You gotta lay off the Purple Pony powder before bedtime there Ridge.

A-the Gov has no right to mandate an individual to purchase a product.

Covered above

B-the Gov has no right to interject itself into a Dr/patient relationship.

They are not interjecting in the doctor/patient relationship. They are extending it to everyone in the country

C-the Gov has no right deciding what care an individual shall receive.

Health insurance is not health care. It's simply the means to pay for it.

D-as already proven, it is a job killer.

This discussion is specifically about the individual mandate.

E-expense:-the cost associated with the program have gone from IIRC 45 mil projected to over 3 billion and will likely go up from there.

Healthcare wasn't exactly cheap for people to buy before this happened.

F-"you can keep your current health plan and Dr." a lie that is already coming to fruition.

Can you show where they are wrong?

G- kills free market competition in healthcare which is critical to progress in the medical field.

How does it kill the free market? People can still choose which insurer they want to go with.

H- the Gov has no right to limit what an individual can earn, Dr salaries are capped under the ACA.

Doctor salaries are not capped. Insurance company profits are capped, in that they have to spend a marked percentage of their income on health care.

I-expense-millions have received notice from their current carrier that premiums will increase 40-120%.

At which point they can drop off and pay the much lower fine and be covered under the general fund.

J- administrators have no place in deciding who shall receive what treatment and when "death panels" (a reality)

There are no death panels. This isn't Logan's Run.

K- maybe I missed it, but I don't recall ever seeing where healthcare is a "Right".

So just because it isn't an enumerated right means that people shouldn't get it at all, and just die?

As already noted, if this is such a wonderful thing, why have so many attempted to be waived exempt or receive subsidy for it?

Individual mandate discussion here.

Let's look back to how it was implemented.
A-behind closed doors(but this is "the most transparent administration" isn't it?)
B- "you have to pass it to see what's in it."
C-back door dealings to get support and enough votes to pass it (Nebraska and Louisiana come to mind)
D-as we have seen so well in our state with other legislation, the elected representatives did not consider their constituents input.
E- a SCOTUS judge was clearly leveraged into ruling in favor of it (unclear as to exactly how but it is clear Roberts had a sudden change of heart)

I'm certainly not arguing over how it was passed. But regarding the Supreme Court, it's very likely that Roberts read the bill (unlike most Americans) and saw what can come of it, and changed his mind.

Great-Kazoo

09-21-2013, 08:13

Ridge

09-21-2013, 08:22

Using the IRS as the oversight dept should speak volumes, regarding how it's run. IF ACA is such a benefit to society, why is a Revenue agency and not HHS running it?
WHY are labor unions saying it will weaken them more, if implemented? Why are members of congress exempt? Why are more and more corps, asking for a delay of start date?
WHY do I need to be burdened more than i am now, FORCED to support more, less fortunate people who either do not or can not pay now ?

I already covered congress. All of a sudden, you support labor unions? And we're only discussing the individual mandate.

Why is using an existing agency to run this bad? It's more fiscally responsible than creating yet another.

And I'm forced to support you through social security, just like you did with previous generations.

00tec

09-21-2013, 08:23

It is a blatant example of socialism. I'm not a big fan of socialism.

Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.

Ridge

09-21-2013, 08:34

It is a blatant example of socialism. I'm not a big fan of socialism.

Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.

There is a ton of socialism in this country that we all benefit from. Fire departments, police services, schools, roads.

Great-Kazoo

09-21-2013, 08:37

I already covered congress. All of a sudden, you support labor unions? And we're only discussing the individual mandate.

Why is using an existing agency to run this bad? It's more fiscally responsible than creating yet another.

And I'm forced to support you through social security, just like you did with previous generations.

THE IRS??? Why not HHS, a dept geared towards HEALTH vs. one who uses capricious and arbitrary laws to steal property.

I don't support unions, just curious why what they term THE REASON OBAMA was REELECTED comes out and says ACA will destroy the unions .

vossman

09-21-2013, 08:40

[Pop]

Jerrymrc, can I share some of your popcorn?

merl

09-21-2013, 08:46

My big issue with it is the mandate to buy something from a private corp. I would rather have seen "Don't have insurance, here is your medicare card, you owe us $X." I think that would have been more legal (yes I know the SC said it was legal as is) and would have provided a better baseline. We'll see how it plays out but I expect many stories where people didn't read the fine print about what is covered.

Forcing action in the name of public health is both disingenuous and a slippery slope. The slippery slope depends on your level of paranoia so I'll focus on the first half of that statement. When doing something for the public health are we doing things to create the maximum healthy years for the most people or are we doing things to reduce health care costs?
Maximizing healthy years is noble but it cuts into individual choice and freedom. This is where the slippery slope comes in. Reduction of choice is a very tough sell so any improvement in healthy years is sold as a cost reduction and this is where the lies come in. Most of us are going to get sick and die at some point. It will be an expensive taper no matter if you lived a healthy life or your idea of exercise is walking to the car. The big difference is when it happens, not how expensive it is. The healthier ones will have more years at end of life where they are supported by their savings or the dole or both. They have more time for other injuries or non-fatal sicknesses. The longer you live, especially after you stop working, the higher the costs.

I see the role of govt in this situation as only reducing costs with no permission to reduce personal choice. Setting policies that specifically reduce cost without reducing choice could have some strange effects though: Do seat belt and helmet laws increase or decrease overall cost? Maximizing the healthy years should only be done though education, not through reduction of choice and not through fines (which are a reduction in the choice in how one spends their money.)

aside: I'm guessing this topic is partially due to the budget fiasco that is ongoing in DC? The R side in the house needs to put out a solid budget with painful cuts all over (including our beloved market distorting tax deductions). The equivalent of another sequester, everyone gets hit.
Stop with the grandstanding of de-funding ACA, that is a dead horse. Now that we are seeing what the ACA actually entails, tweak it. It is not going away with the current government so address the bad parts.

hghclsswhitetrsh

09-21-2013, 08:50

Let's not forget the fact that every poll(I've seen) shows more than 50% of the American people don't agree with it.

Ridge

09-21-2013, 09:13

Let's not forget the fact that every poll(I've seen) shows more than 50% of the American people don't agree with it.

Those polls also show more than 50% of Americans are in favor of tougher gun laws. The people are ignorant, and polls can be worded to skew the results.

hghclsswhitetrsh

09-21-2013, 09:18

Those polls also show more than 50% of Americans are in favor of tougher gun laws. The people are ignorant, and polls can be worded to skew the results.

Doesn't matter what the polls say about gun rights. That's why we have the constitution.

Ps it's not my responsibility through tax money to pay for someone else's health care.

Wake up from your pony dreams and join the real adult world.

Ridge

09-21-2013, 09:22

Doesn't matter what the polls say about gun rights. That's why we have the constitution.

Ps it's not my responsibility through tax money to pay for someone else's health care.

Wake up from your pony dreams and join the real adult world.

The constitution also says the government is to provide for the general welfare of it's people.

09-21-2013, 09:24

Let's not forget the fact that every poll(I've seen) shows more than 50% of the American people don't agree with it.

IMO, that argument is not tangible; almost 50% want "the sale of firearms more strict" (http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm). Do we concur with that statement?

The government started down this Progressive road quite some time ago with the implementation of SS, Medicare, food-stamps, etc, and this is just a continuation.

Ridge

09-21-2013, 09:25

THE IRS??? Why not HHS, a dept geared towards HEALTH vs. one who uses capricious and arbitrary laws to steal property.

I don't support unions, just curious why what they term THE REASON OBAMA was REELECTED comes out and says ACA will destroy the unions .

Unions don't make up 53% of the population, which is what got Obama reelected. That's like saying the NRA is responsible for Morse being recalled.

BPTactical

09-21-2013, 09:28

Wake up from your pony dreams and join the real adult world.

Kind of hard to do when one is in the basement surrounded by video monitors and games with pink and purple toy horsies to keep one company.......

spqrzilla

09-21-2013, 09:28

The interstate commerce clause has never before been interpreted to mean that the government could mandate that the people purchase something. And in fact, the Supreme Court didn't hold that it could in the case of the ACA.

After explicit statutory language that the individual mandate penalty was not a tax but a specific penalty for failing to purchase something, after Democrat supporters of the ACA legislation repeatedly stating that the penalty was not a tax, the Supreme Court - solely because the Chief Justice shifted his initial position - held that in fact, the individual mandate was simply a tax enacted under the Congress' taxing power.

spqrzilla

09-21-2013, 09:32

That said, the ACA is a disasterous piece of legislation written by a pack of monkeys utterly ignorant of basic economics. The legislation sets up incentives for small employers to stay small, to shift full time employees to part time and to decide to abandon employer sponsored coverage.

The regulation of the healthcare insurance industry is set up to destroy economical health insurance, forbid high deductable affordable plans, and force everyone to buy expensive health insurance with coverage of luxury or special interest medical care options inserted by paying off Congress.

The ACA is already doing immense damage to our economy and its "reform" of health care insurance is actually taking that industry in the opposite direction of where it should go.

Oh, and the promises of all those people ACA would put into coverage that were not covered before? That was all BS:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/09/20/white-house-drastically-rolls-back-obamacare-expectations/

Ridge

09-21-2013, 09:42

ACA does make it so someone can't be denied coverage due to pre existing conditions, which it's one of the few things in it that I agree with.

TAR31

09-21-2013, 09:47

Those ponies have really rotted your brain.

Ridge

09-21-2013, 09:51

Those ponies have really rotted your brain.

Spending a weekend in Fountain did far worse.

Rabid

09-21-2013, 09:58

Those polls also show more than 50% of Americans are in favor of tougher gun laws. The people are ignorant, and polls can be worded to skew the results.
Agreed, i hate it when people use polls of any sort to try and prove their point.

My problem is we already paid more for public healthcare (ie medicare, poor, illegals, etc etc) before ACA then the people of countries that have a centralized healthcare system do per capita and now they want to add more then a hundred million people to a like program. I do not see these costs going down in the future with the ACA's implementation either. If anything i think it will be like the postage stamp and go up in price in small increments and in time will do more harm then good. Also i do not trust our government to run much of anything, we have too much corruption for me to think they will do whats right for the people.

I have thought for a long time the government really needed to do some form of healthcare reform but this option seems to be a poor one. I have no doubt it will go in to effect so only time will tell now.

StagLefty

09-21-2013, 10:20

Kind of hard to do when one is in the basement surrounded by video monitors and games with pink and purple toy horsies to keep one company.......

[ROFL2][ROFL3][LOL] That's called profiling !!

Irving

09-21-2013, 10:39

Kind of hard to do when one is in the basement surrounded by video monitors and games with pink and purple toy horsies to keep one company.......

Well this certainly convinces me of your point. Excellent debate technique.

ChunkyMonkey

09-21-2013, 10:54

They aren't exempt. Originally, they didn't have to join the healthcare exchange, but an amendment to the bill makes it so that they are now part of it, just like everyone else.

They say that they do, as it falls under the insterstate commerce clause. You can argue that it also falls under the government's requirement to provide for the national welfare.

Covered above

They are not interjecting in the doctor/patient relationship. They are extending it to everyone in the country

Health insurance is not health care. It's simply the means to pay for it.

This discussion is specifically about the individual mandate.

Healthcare wasn't exactly cheap for people to buy before this happened.

Can you show where they are wrong?

How does it kill the free market? People can still choose which insurer they want to go with.

Doctor salaries are not capped. Insurance company profits are capped, in that they have to spend a marked percentage of their income on health care.

At which point they can drop off and pay the much lower fine and be covered under the general fund.

There are no death panels. This isn't Logan's Run.

So just because it isn't an enumerated right means that people shouldn't get it at all, and just die?

Individual mandate discussion here.

I'm certainly not arguing over how it was passed. But regarding the Supreme Court, it's very likely that Roberts read the bill (unlike most Americans) and saw what can come of it, and changed his mind.

75% subsidize so they can buy private insurance outside the exchange IS exemption!!

TFOGGER

09-21-2013, 11:05

More to the point: Name ANYTHING that the Federal government does that could not be done better, faster, and more efficiently by private enterprise. Think about the 39000 pages of federal tax code, the Post Office, DOE, EPA, USDA, FDA, and the IRS, and tell me you want the same level of bureaucratic incompetence involved in administering health insurance in this country. The ACA only looks at the consumer side when it caps costs, but does not address tort reform for frivolous lawsuits which account for 12% of every healthcare dollar. As usual, the Democrats rammed through poorly thought out feel good provisions without any consideration as to how to pay for it or make it sustainable in the long term.

BPTactical

09-21-2013, 11:16

Well this certainly convinces me of your point. Excellent debate technique.

My point was made in post #7 of this thread. It covered a small handful of the objectionable features of this abomination of legislation.
Anything after that is pure,good natured,sarcastic antagonization.

asmo

09-21-2013, 11:18

One of the many things that I find despicable about the ACA is the tax on 'Cadillac' health plans. I work really hard to have a good job and incredible benefits - now I have to pay an INSANE amount of tax (12k per year!!) because I have a nice PPO with a very low deductible. However, if I leave my PPO and go with the government plan then everything is 'free' and I don't have to pay the tax. Having the government effectively force me into buying something from a specific entity or entities is blatantly wrong in every sense of the word.

One of the other reasons that I don't like the ACA is the forcing of employers to provide insurance. This has the effect of keeping me from starting any new companies and I have sold off the ones I had - putting ~20 people out of work. I am (was) only one employer - I can only imagine the chilling effect this is having on small businesses around the country.

As for whether the unions are allowed an exemption to ACA - your damn right they are. My wife does HR and benefits for a large company with both union and non-union employees. The company petitioned for a flat exemption and the self-insurance route - the gov't said the non-union employees are subject to the ACA, the union employees are exempted until 2018 (including paying a tax on the 'Cadillac' plans).

Jeffrey Lebowski

09-21-2013, 11:32

The constitution also says the government is to provide for the general welfare of it's people.

There are an awful lot of things falling under such a broad umbrella.
What is "General Welfare?"
200 years ago, it may have been protection from an invading army/navy.
2 generations ago, it may have been some sort of safety net for retiring old folks.
Now it is "free" Health Care.
What about the broccoli argument? It would be for the general welfare if we all ate more responsibly. Are we going to be forced into dietary plans?
It would be better for the general welfare if we all exercised more. Are we going to be forced into exercise plans? Must buy memberships at gyms?
It would be better for the general welfare if your current home and property were converted to a nice safe park for the children. Should we do that?

mikedubs

09-21-2013, 11:47

Fining people for not buying mandated health insurance.

"I made him an offer he couldn't refuse"
OR
"You can have any color you want, as long as its black."

Hey how bout you GFY

jerrymrc

09-21-2013, 13:09

Jerrymrc, can I share some of your popcorn?

Just checking in to see how it is going. BTW gang, do keep it civil. Everyone is entitled to there own opinion.[handbags]

Ridge

09-21-2013, 13:19

Just checking in to see how it is going. BTW gang, do keep it civil. Everyone is entitled to there own opinion.[handbags]

Again with the entitlements here!

spqrzilla

09-21-2013, 13:41

There is a ton of socialism in this country that we all benefit from. Fire departments, police services, schools, roads.

OK, so now we know you don't know what socialism is.

spqrzilla

09-21-2013, 13:42

The constitution also says the government is to provide for the general welfare of it's people.

No, that's not what it says.

09-21-2013, 13:43

The constitution also says the government is to provide for the general welfare of it's people.

Section 8 of the Constitution does state "provide for the common defence and general welfare of the US..". However, it lists very specific items that (at least in my opinion) that address the general welfare items; and health insurance is not included. But then again, nor is there anything about Fannie, Freddie, Fed Reserve, DOE, etc, etc, etc. We as a nation, past and present, have allowed the Federal government to grow/expand into areas never even considered by the founding fathers. The progressive genie has been out of the bottle for some time, and its damn hard to put him back after 100+ years.

Out of my own ignorance, was the fight over Social Security as fervent then as the fight over ACA now? What about the Medicare/Medicaid acts?

spqrzilla

09-21-2013, 13:44

ACA does make it so someone can't be denied coverage due to pre existing conditions, which it's one of the few things in it that I agree with.

So you agree that the legislation should utterly destroy the very concept of "insurance". Got it.

Ridge

09-21-2013, 13:47

OK, so now we know you don't know what socialism is.

So what is it, then?

Ridge

09-21-2013, 13:48

So you agree that the legislation should utterly destroy the very concept of "insurance". Got it.

What about an infant born with a disease or disorder? Should they never be able to afford healthcare? Should they just be forced to die?

spqrzilla

09-21-2013, 13:50

Section 8 of the Constitution does state "provide for the common defence and general welfare of the US..". However, it lists very specific items that (at least in my opinion) that address the general welfare items; and health insurance is not included. But then again, nor is there anything about Fannie, Freddie, Fed Reserve, DOE, etc, etc, etc. We as a nation, past and present, have allowed the Federal government to grow/expand into areas never even considered by the founding fathers. The progressive genie has been out of the bottle for some time, and its damn hard to put him back after 100+ years.

Out of my own ignorance, was the fight over Social Security as fervent then as the fight over ACA now? What about the Medicare/Medicaid acts?
Art 1 Sec 8 - The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States ...

No, Article 1 section 8 says that Congress has the power to collect taxes to pay for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States. That's a power not a duty. And its only describing what Congress can spend money upon, it is not a regulatory power.

spqrzilla

09-21-2013, 13:53

So what is it, then?
Socialism is the idea that the collective society has the power to control the means of production. If all commonly provided infrastructure like roads were socialism, you've just destroyed any meaning of the term by having it encompass all forms of government, including Libertarianism.

spqrzilla

09-21-2013, 13:54

What about an infant born with a disease or disorder? Should they never be able to afford healthcare? Should they just be forced to die?

Well, you have complete command of the powers of the logical fallacies of non sequitur and strawman.

Not to mention you've done the usual rhetorical trick of conflating health care insurance and health care. I submit to you that you don't understand the topic of discussion.

09-21-2013, 13:55

ACA does make it so someone can't be denied coverage due to pre existing conditions, which it's one of the few things in it that I agree with.

I understand the point; but at the core of the issue is the government mandating that a business insure a risk. Are Kaiser, Aetna, etc, going to sacrifice their business models and profit margins because they have to insure high risk customers? I think not. The healthy are/will be paying for the sick. Which brings us the the "single payer" debate...

09-21-2013, 13:57

Art 1 Sec 8 - The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States ...

No, Article 1 section 8 says that Congress has the power to collect taxes to pay for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States. That's a power not a duty. And its only describing what Congress can spend money upon, it is not a regulatory power.

I'm agreeing with you 100%. Perhaps my message was lost out of my ineptness...

spqrzilla

09-21-2013, 13:59

Meanwhile, Obamacare's destruction of the health care industry continues:
http://twitchy.com/2013/09/21/health-insurers-to-customers-if-you-like-your-plan-you-can-keep-nah-youre-screwed/

Ridge

09-21-2013, 14:05

Well, you have complete command of the powers of the logical fallacies of non sequitur and strawman.

Not to mention you've done the usual rhetorical trick of conflating health care insurance and health care. I submit to you that you don't understand the topic of discussion.

I never said to give them healthcare. I said so they can afford to buy it. Nice job substituting my words for those that fit your prepared argument.

09-21-2013, 14:06

What about an infant born with a disease or disorder? Should they never be able to afford healthcare? Should they just be forced to die?

My argument; it is not my responsibility to take care of someone else's kid, or anyone else for that matter.

Ridge, you are a closet progressive aren't ya?[ROFL2]

rondog

09-21-2013, 14:07

I think the important question here is, "Ridge, WTF is wrong with you?" Did you fall and hit your head or something? Got a fever?

spqrzilla

09-21-2013, 14:07

Nope, you continue to play rhetoric games, Ridge. I am not going to fall for it.

Here's the bottom line: PPACA is already a failure. Its costing twice what was predicted, it has "insured" only a small fraction of the people predicted and its killing jobs.

rondog

09-21-2013, 14:12

It's wrong. It's evil. It's totally unnecessary and uncalled for. The American People don't want it. Nobody asked for it. It's the goddamn Socialists trying to take over even more control of us all and interject themselves into an even bigger part of our lives! IT'S FUCKING WRONG!

Ridge

09-21-2013, 14:19

I've heard that it's double planned cost, but can you source it? Can you name a government program in the last 50 years that hasn't gone drastically over budget?

09-21-2013, 14:25

Cost is a non-issue as long as we print our own fiat currency, or so thinks our government. But that genie WILL be put back into his bottle sometime in the future...

avandelay

09-21-2013, 15:12

Given that the NSA is allowed to way overstep the bounds set forth in their Charter, given that the IRS seems to be a partisan arm of the Executive branch, given that every entitlement program the Gov't runs turns into a major monetary sinkhole, do you really trust the Gov't to follow through with all of the promises of the ACA? Consider this. The ACA was sold as a plan to cover those that can't afford coverage under the guise that everyone pays into the system to reduce overall cost. Since those that can't afford coverage are now covered (by tax credits that still come out the collective pockets of 50% of the workers) then our costs should go significantly down, but year over year they're doing the opposite. Premiums and taxes are both going up and coverage is going down so we end up with a triple hit to pay for this. It does not seem that the ACA was primarily designed to cover those that can't afford it (there will be millions not covered under ACA), it was designed to redistribute monies from the haves to the have nots under the force of law and give everyone a less than optimum level of medical coverage.

Gman

09-21-2013, 15:14

ACA does make it so someone can't be denied coverage due to pre existing conditions, which it's one of the few things in it that I agree with.
This was already in place and was not instituted by Obamacare.

You buy insurance before you need it. To not buy car insurance and then decide to have an accident covered by buying insurance after the fact, is just plain stupid. The insurance companies that did such a thing would quickly go under.

If someone has the means to pay for their own healthcare, why should they be forced to pay into a program that they don't need? The only answer is another redistribution of wealth scheme.

Bailey Guns

09-21-2013, 15:33

I guess I'm not buying the premise in the OP that you're playing "devil's advocate". I'm guessing that you're actually all for Obamacare and you're kind of looking for some validation. I also agree with spqrzilla...you really don't understand several terms, among them "health care", "health insurance" and "socialism" and you don't have a grasp of what the ACA will actually do to our economy.

There are millions of pages of discussion by experts on both sides of the issue available on the net. At this point, I can't imagine someone looking at the arguments objectively and coming to the conclusion that Obamacare is a good thing for anyone. Yes, anyone.

Bailey Guns

09-21-2013, 15:43

And BTW, Ridge...when an infant is born with some sort of serious issue there are already insurance/health care options in place without Obamacare. They're called SSI and Medicaid. No baby born with some sort of disease or disorder is going to be "forced to die". That's a progressive/liberal talking point that's simply - as is normally the case with progressive/liberal talking points - a lie meant to elicit a strong emotional response from people who are too lazy to research facts.

I've heard that it's double planned cost, but can you source it? Can you name a government program in the last 50 years that hasn't gone drastically over budget?

Right. So we just shouldn't worry about the cost because all government programs are over budget. That sounds like a really good plan to get us into the fiscal mess we're in now.

Great-Kazoo

09-21-2013, 15:48

Unions don't make up 53% of the population, which is what got Obama reelected. That's like saying the NRA is responsible for Morse being recalled.

You've avoided my issues with the IRS having control over ACA 2X now. By doing so, you discredit any credibility you thought you had. Address the IRS side, or cease your counter arguments.

cstone

09-21-2013, 15:50

The best government is less government.

The ACA is movement in the wrong direction IMO. I fear a country where the citizens are wholly dependent on what the government can do for them. The ACA is a step toward single payer, which is what the progressive movement is moving us toward. Once the insurance industry is destroyed and health care is completely regulated by government, the next step will be total control of health care.

If you want to see government provided health care first hand in the USA, check out the VA or the Bureau of Prisons. No thank you.

There are very few things the government can do as efficiently and quickly as private industry. This is why the government uses almost as many contractors to do it's work as they use government employees.

IMO government is a cancer on a free society. We either get it under control or it will kill the nation.

Great-Kazoo

09-21-2013, 15:54

What about an infant born with a disease or disorder? Should they never be able to afford healthcare? Should they just be forced to die?

WELL FUK ME Ridge FINALLY use "the children" card. Either you are another of those "sensible" gun owners, I've read about. OR someone's hacked your account.

rondog

09-21-2013, 16:50

I fear a country where the citizens are wholly dependent on what the government can do for them. The ACA is a step toward single payer, which is what the progressive movement is moving us toward. Once the insurance industry is destroyed and health care is completely regulated by government, the next step will be total control of health care.

If you want to see government provided health care first hand in the USA, check out the VA or the Bureau of Prisons. No thank you.

There are very few things the government can do as efficiently and quickly as private industry. This is why the government uses almost as many contractors to do it's work as they use government employees.

IMO government is a cancer on a free society. We either get it under control or it will kill the nation.

"Look at what all The Democrats have done for me! I love The Democrats! I'm going to vote for every Democrat I possibly can! Same with all my family and friends, The Democrats love us!"

09-21-2013, 17:22

You've avoided my issues with the IRS having control over ACA 2X now. By doing so, you discredit any credibility you thought you had. Address the IRS side, or cease your counter arguments.

+1

I think Ridge just wanted to start shit this morning, because he only responds to certain counter-arguments and not others!

[Pop]

spqrzilla

09-21-2013, 18:25

spqrzilla

09-21-2013, 18:37

The LA Times, well known for its obsessive obsequiousness with respect to all things Obama, tells us that these wonderful Obamacare exchange plans seem to be missing .... oh, doctors:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure-doctor-networks-20130915,0,2814725.story

brutal

09-21-2013, 19:36

Ridge,

You've been torturing people in GTA5 for a few days now and just came here to vent?

Fess up.

jamesm7485

09-21-2013, 19:47

Ridge and I shared a few good laughs today at work. Well done troll good sir well done...

Bailey Guns

09-21-2013, 19:53

Bailey Guns, since I have clients who have a two year who was born with very serious conditions, and I've been spending the last two years helping them deal with the financial consequences, I'm afraid that Ridge's statement of his ignorance on the topic of the care of that child angered me so much that I didn't comment earlier.

I'm sure that would be a nightmare for the child and parents for a lot of reasons, dealing with gov't bureaucracy included. I doubt Obamacare will improve anything.

Ridge

09-21-2013, 20:40

+1

I think Ridge just wanted to start shit this morning, because he only responds to certain counter-arguments and not others!

[Pop]

I've been doing this from my phone because I've been at work all fucking day. Sorry if I didn't get to you guys fast enough or didn't answer all your questions that I answered previously.

Ridge

09-21-2013, 20:42

Ridge,

You've been torturing people in GTA5 for a few days now and just came here to vent?

Fess up.

I fucking wish. I'm not about to pay for internet, pay for a console, pay for a game and then pay to use the game on the internet. I'll wait until it comes out for PC.

Instead I've been telling call center managers that their 3 people being unable to get into a program that they don't need to do their jobs is not a major crisis that requires an all hands call on a Saturday.

Aloha_Shooter

09-21-2013, 21:25

What is it that gets you guys riled up about the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate?

How about the fact that there's no provision in the Constitution that allows the Federal government to levy a mandate like that? How about the fact that the government makes EVERYTHING less efficient and more expensive? How about the fact that you have to be a bonehead without enough gray matter to provide friction for a kitchen match to buy this crap ... and I have quite a bit more gray matter than that?

Aloha_Shooter

09-21-2013, 21:29

The constitution also says the government is to provide for the general welfare of it's people.

... and by the way, that's the preamble which is there to say WHY we have a Constitution. There is nothing in the actual articles that gives this power or responsibility to the federal government and in fact the Tenth Amendment specifically preempts the federal government from assuming any powers over and above what was explicitly granted to it.

Gman

09-21-2013, 23:42

...and they've completely bastardized the interstate commerce clause to insert themselves into anything where money changes hands.

mountainjenny

09-22-2013, 04:39

F-"you can keep your current health plan and Dr." a lie that is already coming to fruition.

This just happened to me. My current plan is being discontinued. I can get a "new" plan from my insurance provider, which is really just my old plan (+ACA bullshit) with 4 times the cost, and/or I can enroll in the exchange and pick a new plan starting October 1, 2013.

I'm looking into other insurance providers now.

Bailey Guns

09-22-2013, 07:11

This just happened to me. My current plan is being discontinued. I can get a "new" plan from my insurance provider, which is really just my old plan (+ACA bullshit) with 4 times the cost, and/or I can enroll in the exchange and pick a new plan starting October 1, 2013.

I'm looking into other insurance providers now.

No, sorry, you're wrong. Under the ACA you'll be able to keep your current insurance plan and your doctor. Obama said so. Now run along and reduce your carbon footprint in a meaningful way.

Skully

09-22-2013, 07:34

All I got to add;

http://cl.jroo.me/z3/r/P/z/d/a.aaa-Friends-are-like-potatoes.png

wctriumph

09-22-2013, 08:01

The constitution also says the government is to provide for the general welfare of it's people.

Is this where you get the idea that the government is to provide for the general welfare. If so I think you have it wrong.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#DOMTRAN), provide for the common defence (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html), promote the general Welfare (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#POSTERITY), do ordain (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ORDAIN) and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I read it as We The People establish a Constitution to ensure the rights of The People and to LIMIT the GOVERNMENT.

jerrymrc

09-22-2013, 08:39

Just checking back again to see how it is going. [Flower]

68Charger

09-22-2013, 08:48

I'd point out that there is a complete lack of reliable sources cited in this "argument", but the last thing I want to do on a Sunday I don't have to work is read a bunch of boring crap about health care mandates...

Ridge

09-22-2013, 09:13

Is this where you get the idea that the government is to provide for the general welfare. If so I think you have it wrong.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#DOMTRAN), provide for the common defence (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html), promote the general Welfare (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#POSTERITY), do ordain (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ORDAIN) and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I read it as We The People establish a Constitution to ensure the rights of The People and to LIMIT the GOVERNMENT.

Well you can read it however you want. It's how the Supreme Court reads it that matters.

hghclsswhitetrsh

09-22-2013, 09:19

This should make sense to you as well. Sell your guns pony boy. The government will ensure your safety from this point forward.

Aloha_Shooter

09-22-2013, 09:27

In the first place, the Preamble is pretty clear English regardless of how lawyers like Elena Kagan have twisted the actual text of the Constitution. The Preamble states why the Founders ordained and established the Constitution and I can easily argue that limiting federal power is in fact one of the foundations of the Constitution that promotes the General Welfare (as well as securing the blessings of Liberty). Nearly every time the federal government pushes its power beyond the powers established under the actual text, it creates a less perfect Union, violates Justice, undermines domestic Tranquility, threatens the General Welfare and slaps Liberty full in the face.

Well you can read it however you want. It's how the Supreme Court reads it that matters.

... and I suppose you felt this way with respect to the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision or Kelo vs. City of New London? For that matter, given your political persuasions, I suppose you were telling the Democrats to shut up in 2001 and just approve Bush's cabinet appointments instead of tying them up into the summer because the SCUSA had rendered its ruling in Bush v. Gore? Where's your letter telling Obama and Holder to shut up because the SCUSA made its ruling in Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission? I happen to think the SCUSA made the right ruling in the latter two but given what you just said, you must consider their opinion inviolate, right?

mountainjenny

09-22-2013, 09:35

No, sorry, you're wrong. Under the ACA you'll be able to keep your current insurance plan and your doctor. Obama said so. Now run along and reduce your carbon footprint in a meaningful way.

[LOL] I'll get one of these.

34203

hatidua

09-22-2013, 10:18

[Censor]

I suspect you could have started with that post and saved everyone a whole lot of effort trying to legitimately answer the original question. "Devils Advocate"? -not so much.

Ridge

09-22-2013, 10:21

Pretty fuckin hard to play devil's advocate when everyone you're talking with thinks they are 100% right and god is on their side and all the other bullshit I've seen on here.

Bailey Guns

09-22-2013, 10:28

I'm fucking sick of the mentality on this forum where if you don't run in lock step with the GOP that you are a card carrying socialist.

This is a message board for gun owners, not for Republicans.

Wow...you really haven't been paying attention. The only people that get bashed on this board more than cops are republicans.

TEAMRICO

09-22-2013, 10:30

[Censor]
Gee this was interesting until this..........Hey Ridge, Thak s for insulting ME. Now you may go FUCK YOURSELF you cry baby.

How about the mere fact that I DONT WANT IT?
Have you very considered that?
What an ass.

In before the lock!

Great-Kazoo

09-22-2013, 10:48

[Censor]

Pretty fuckin hard to play devil's advocate when everyone you're talking with thinks they are 100% right and god is on their side and all the other bullshit I've seen on here.

Dave, you're a decent guy and seem to be a straight shooter.
FWIW: I am neither a consertavite, OR a Christian. Nor have I felt there is, or was a conspiracy, to convert me to both a Conservative or Christian. I'm a United State's Citizen, voter and gun owner. I do not like being forced to do anything against my will, or old time belief, where in order to receive, you must contribute. ACA does nothing but keep those dependent on government, to stay there.

09-22-2013, 10:49

..I'm fucking sick of the mentality on this forum where if you don't run in lock step with the GOP that you are a card carrying socialist.

This is a message board for gun owners, not for Republicans.

So you are a Progressive! [ROFL2] (that's a joke, so don't get butt-hurt!)

You will have to help me out though; I did not really see any god references. And it might just be my reading; but I think I see more of a libertarian skew to the responses than a republican.

Good discussion till it went south..

Aloha_Shooter

09-22-2013, 10:51

Pretty fuckin hard to play devil's advocate when everyone you're talking with thinks they are 100% right and god is on their side and all the other bullshit I've seen on here.

I don't see a lot of people claiming God/Allah/Manitou/The Great Bird of the Galaxy is on their side but you asked a question and were answered. Most of the answers you were given are factual with clear reasoning that you could respond to and try to poke holes in -- which is what you're supposed to do when you're the Devil's Advocate. Why don't you try clarifying why you think the PPACA is within the mandated powers of the Federal Government and will improve overall healthcare despite the number of people who are losing coverage or access to their chosen providers and the overall increase in costs it seems to be pushing?

If you're going to be a Devil's Advocate, BE a Devil's Advocate and some prepared to argue your view with facts and reasoning. How about this one? Chief Justice Robertson correctly ascertained the individual mandate portion of the PPACA could be within the legitimate tax powers of the government if it were labeled as a tax. President Obama, Representative Pelosi and Senator Reid would therefore be on firmer legal ground (albeit shakier political ground) if they admitted the whole act was a tax that was designed as a stepping stone to their stated end goal of universal federal healthcare and that (as a tax) it is clearly under the legislative dominion of the House of Representatives. The argument then would revolve around the policy goals of said tax rather than the Tenth Amendment limitation of powers since the federal government inarguably DOES have the power of taxation. As it stands, your OP opens the debate to arguments about the legitimacy of the act itself, Robertson's contorted opinion notwithstanding.

Cowboy up, pony boy.