The logic behind the Obamacare tax issue, and Obama's lack of integrity

Do you want facts or do you want an answer that you can rationalize according to your liberal bent? Never mind, I know the answer. However regardless of how you wish to evade the fact. The MANDATE was found unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. And obamacare, NOT THE MANDATE, survives as a TAX.

That's the TAX FAX JAX!

 

Please provide a link stating this then.

 

Please provide a link stating this then.

 

Please provide me a link stating that the individual mandate was struck from the law by SCOTUS. (I expect you to not come back to this thread again)

 

You provide your own (*)(*)(*)(*)ing link.

You have not listened to anything anyone has said on here.

 

You claim that the "tax" will be collected differently than the "fine" based on the SCOTUS ruling. You need to back this claim up. You cannot, meaning you lost the debate. On your own thread. Ouch.

 

So when is Obama going to have the law re-written to be as a tax?

 

Probably when you learn how the three branches of government operate. In other words...never.

 

If its a tax, and the law was not written as a tax, it must be re-written. fail to you

 

First of all: do all penalties and fines have to be rewritten as a tax?

Second of all: OBAMA DOES NOT WRITE LEGISLATION.

 

no (*)(*)(*)(*) sherlock. If he was a true leader with honor and integrity. he would say that the law must be re-written and voted on and then signed before he can allow it to further be put forward in its current state.

However, since Obama is a pathetic trashy leftist girly man liberal, he won't.

 

Obama can't say ANYTHING has to be rewritten, especially after it's been signed into law.

 

Absolutely False. The ER's sole purpose is to stabilize you, they will not not treat an underlying medical condition, such as a cancer or congenitive heart failure.

Scenario A: If you are brought in suffering from a stroke or a seizures due to an underlying medical condition--like a brain tumor (CANCER) for instance, the hospital (ER) they will attempt to stabilize you and resolve the immediate medical emergency (stroke/seizures). The fact that you have cancer is moot. The ER will not provide you chemotherapy, radiation, or anything to treat the cancer itself.

Scenario B: If you are brought in suffering from a heart attack, they will attempt to stabilize you, via resolving the immediate medical emergency, nothing more. They will not be performing a heart transplant on you. The fact that you have congenitive heart failure requiring a heart transplant is moot. The ER will not provide you with a heart transplant.

People lacking health insurance and/or big bank accounts, who unfortunately find themselves in Scenario A or B, will certainly die from their condition--which is otherwise treatable in some way, shape, or form. The ER will not turn you away, but they will not fix your primary issue at hand (heart failure/cancer). The specialists on the other hand, who can resolve those bigger issues, -WILL- turn you away. And if you don't believe me, feel free to stroll into any oncologist's or cardiologist's office demanding treatment for A or B, and then saying you have no health insurance and no way to pay for the procedures. Your ass is going to die.

It's hilarious that I even have to explain this.

 

Why must it? Wouldnt that be too terrible a burden when the USA could simply have the legislation as written now?

How about you guys just leave it alone and get on with your lives, after all, youre all going to be covered now = be happy!

 

You liberals are like dealing with brain impaired babies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consti...ederation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius

Chief Justice Roberts concluded:

" The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consti...ederation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius



" The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax."




I expect no apology from mind-locked liberals.

 

If Obama was a stand up person, who was really about defending the constitution, than he would.

 

Why are liberals so inept when it comes to logical thought.

Ok, so lets say someone doesn't have insurance. They get sick....if it were me, my life is worth everything. And I would get treatment and pay off whatever bills I could over time If I had to. hell, I would pay them off the rest of my life.

You have to ask yourself, what is your life worth to you? Is it worth a few thousand bucks? how about $40,000? how about a million?

There is medicaid, we have had medicaid for a long time. There is charity care. We have catholic charities, and thousands of other places that will give people who can't afford it care.

But let me ask you this directly. What is your life worth to you? Would you not get treatment because you don't want to pay a medical bill? really?

 

Because, it is either a tax or it isn't. The bill was written specifically not to be a tax. You can't call black white and white black.

 

And Romney agrees it's not a tax. Oops.

 

Why? SCOTUS already did that for us so what would be the point?

 

Just because I don't worship at the alter of Sarah Palin and cheer the thought of uninsured people dying--doesn't magically make me a liberal. Nice try though.

So you are of the mindset that it's OKAY that being diagnosed with cancer should automatically result in the patient having to go into bankruptcy, sell their car(s), home, and all their worldly possessions, simply to afford treatment. In society we are able to afford insurance for virtually everything around us, our homes, our boats, our cars, our cellular phones, our possessions, our life (upon death), EXCEPT our bodies while we are alive. This is a moronic reality for anyone to cheer and applaud, yet so many conservatives line up and do exactly that.

Medicaid is only for people who quality for it. Charity care? I laughed out loud. Yeah, "charity care" comes in handy when you're a cancer patient requiring $100,000 in chemotherapy/radiation/surgery. I'm sure that'll cover approximately 1/1000th of the bill.

Nothing better epitomizes the problem with the un-affordable healthcare in America than actually suggesting that desperately sick people should be relying on charity.

Just, wow.

 

You go to a ER with a heart attack. They will stabilize you. IF that means open heart surgery, then that IS what they do. If that hospital does not do open heart surgery, they take you to a nearby hospital that does and they do the open heart surgery like you had come into their ER in the first place. The hospital CANNOT send you away in danger of death. Hospitals have arrangements with the local government were they are allowed a certain amount for treating the indigent.

IT IS COMMONPLACE in big city hospitals that the local poor use ER's as their family doctor. They report in with a sprained ankle, or the sniffles, and the hospital wants to send them to a local doc. The poor KNOW to say, "And I also have chest pains!" RATHER than get the 'chest pain' complaint, the hospital treats the sprained ankle/sniffles/whatever, no charge. IT HAPPENS IN EVERY BIG CITY HOSPITAL many times daily. And happens at least once per day in every hospital in the country.

And when people do go bankrupt, they DO NOT lose their house and their car. And bankruptcy for medical bills with a good prior credit history does not even damage their credit.

The FALLACY in your argument is the LACK of dead bodies lying in the streets around hospitals. It does not happen.

And my wife is a retired hospital CFO and holds a Master's Degree in Heath Care Finance. And still does occasional consulting work for hospitals. These are facts, not gobbledygook.

 

Thats the stupidest idea ive seen here for a while.

That medical burden is borne not just by the individual but by all his dependents. Further, often serious conditions prevent people from being able to work as they have done previously.

You surely must know that. Your not that stupid in America.

 

Fascinating, youve now demonstrated why the lack of universal coverage is so inefficient. ERs now have to do tests for a range of complaints when only one small one was real. And all Americans pay for it.

All because poor people cannot simply walk into a local clinic and be fixed like they can in the UK or Europe.

Moreover the lack of people dead in the street is not by design but by the accident of individual compassion. Thats the FALLACY in your argument, these are facts not gobbledygook - Im a healthcare prifessional myself.

 

Back to that old fairy tale about everyone having access to health care in America because a law without teeth was established that forces the hospitals receiving government funding (i.e., medicare) to give basic treatment in the emergency rooms!

first, people who do not have insurance go to the emergency room INSTEAD of going to a generalist where the cost of providing care is 10 to 100 times cheaper. . . And WE, tax payers, have been paying for thoseexcessive charges all along.

Second, people wait until they are really sick and maybe even terminally affected by their illness (i.e., cancer) so the cost of treatment is infinetely bigger, not only in term of economics, but also in terms of human suffering.

Third, the hospitals are ONLY require to STABILIZE patients with no insurance, NOT to provide on-going treatment, so as soon as they are "stabilized," patients are sent home with the advice to "see their primary care physician for follow up" and more likely than not, they will be back in the emergency room within days, or weeks, in a much more serious condition.
. . . . That is, if they are not just DUMPED near a homeless shelter or under a bridge in their hospital gowns!