Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 176

Thread: Oral Arguments

  1. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    21,139


    Again, far too early to read into the questioning by the Justices.

    They are deciding legal questions, not policy questions. Four legal questions in fact.

    So when someone says that Obamacare will be struck down / upheld, the next question should be "which part?".
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  2. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,123

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Again, far too early to read into the questioning by the Justices.

    They are deciding legal questions, not policy questions. Four legal questions in fact.

    So when someone says that Obamacare will be struck down / upheld, the next question should be "which part?".
    I was surprised by the media (even though I shouldn't be) rushing to the cameras to say, "it's going to be struck down". They grilled the opposing side too, albeit not as hard, or as many justices but they still did.




  3. Re: Oral Arguments

    Somebody please explain to me how the government intends on "making" people buy health insurance.

    I personally don't get it.

    How the hell do you make somebody buy something they can't afford if that's their economic difficulty in todays economic environment?

    And how the hell do you make them pay a fine for not buying health insurance if they don't have the money to pay the fine?

    Am I missing something here?
    Will Die A Ravens Fan!!




  4. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,123

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fanatic View Post
    Somebody please explain to me how the government intends on "making" people buy health insurance.

    I personally don't get it.

    How the hell do you make somebody buy something they can't afford if that's their economic difficulty in todays economic environment?

    And how the hell do you make them pay a fine for not buying health insurance if they don't have the money to pay the fine?

    Am I missing something here?
    They say the penalty is to encourage people to buy health insurance. If you don't have the money you get a waiver (so to speak).

    The funny thing is they act like someone who isn't going to get insurance is more likely to pay a $695 penalty than they are a $3,000 policy....




  5. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fanatic View Post
    Somebody please explain to me how the government intends on "making" people buy health insurance.

    I personally don't get it.

    How the hell do you make somebody buy something they can't afford if that's their economic difficulty in todays economic environment?

    And how the hell do you make them pay a fine for not buying health insurance if they don't have the money to pay the fine?

    Am I missing something here?
    Government subsidies.

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk








  6. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,123

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    Government subsidies.

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
    AKA - The Taxpayer.




  7. Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    They say the penalty is to encourage people to buy health insurance. If you don't have the money you get a waiver (so to speak).

    The funny thing is they act like someone who isn't going to get insurance is more likely to pay a $695 penalty than they are a $3,000 policy....
    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    Government subsidies.
    So therefore, as somebody that pays his taxes and buys health insurance I'm still footing the bill for those that don't anyway, right?

    These people are still getting healthcare if needed at the cost of the tax payer and/or people that buy healthcare insurance because the services provided have to be payed for by somebody.

    Why in the hell would the company I work for provide me health insurance at their cost (partially) if they know I can get insurance another way where they don't have to foot the bill?
    Will Die A Ravens Fan!!




  8. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,123

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fanatic View Post
    Why in the hell would the company I work for provide me health insurance at their cost (partially) if they know I can get insurance another way where they don't have to foot the bill?
    And now you know why the bill was crafted the way it was.




  9. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    10,732
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Oral Arguments

    The penalty as I understand it is 2% of your gross salary.

    So if Rush Limbaugh refuses to buy it, IRS will collect 2% of his total salary.
    He gets about $100M pr yr from his radio show plus his speaking engagements, endorsements and books.

    So $100M x 2% = ouch.

    If you make $50,000 pr yr it's still ouch.

    Another thing someone mentioned on TV. If he is re-eleted he will completely do away with private insurance industry much like he is trying to destroy
    the coal industry and the gov't will be the only provider.

    That's the way I thought it would be when I first heard about it.
    Pic of a natural act: UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU. THE PAST IS NOT DEAD, IN FACT, IT IS NOT EVEN PAST.' WILLIAM FAULKNER.




  10. Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    And now you know why the bill was crafted the way it was.
    And presumably shot to hell!!!

    There is some valid stuff in there that should be looked at and mandated I suppose.

    The pre-existing condition stuff is one that comes to mind.
    I think most of us have some sort of pre-existing condition that any insurance company can deny benefits for if they choose, and some of us have actually been denied coverage for.

    But to try and pass this bill off in its entirety is insane!!

    They have no idea what type of $$ this will actually cost the taxpayer even if they say they do.
    They have no idea how many people out there currently without insurance are in need of healthcare and what exactly they are in need of.

    This system will be abused to the max costing taxpayers to the point where they won't be able to afford their own insurance because they're too busy paying for everybody else.
    Will Die A Ravens Fan!!




  11. Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    The penalty as I understand it is 2% of your gross salary.
    If true (I don't know) then this is exactly the point of my first post.

    If you're unemployed, how the hell are you suppose to pay the fine?
    Will Die A Ravens Fan!!




  12. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    10,732
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Unemployment is the heart of this entire bill. The SG said in court that a certain group of people won't pay anything. They will get free health care.
    That's people on well fare and those unemployed. I guess my cousin will
    like it because he's been unemployed for 2 years and is really sick and can't get a job.

    The SG was grilled on this so called tax by both sides drawing much
    laughter:


    "General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax," said Justice Samuel Alito, drawing laughter from spectators in the court. Alito, a 2005 nominee of President George W. Bush, was not the only justice to challenge Verilli's fence straddling. Elena Kagan, nominated by President Obama in 2010, pursued the penalty aspect, asking if people who refuse to purchase insurance would be breaking the law. Verilli replied that if they "pay the tax, then they are in compliance with the law."

    "Why do you keep saying tax?" asked Justice Stephen Bryer, a 1994 Clinton nominee, drawing more laughter


    So back to Rush who won't buy the insurance, he will be in compliance when he pays the tax. If he doesn't pay that due to the principle of it he will go to jail, same if you don't submit taxes in April.
    Pic of a natural act: UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU. THE PAST IS NOT DEAD, IN FACT, IT IS NOT EVEN PAST.' WILLIAM FAULKNER.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland