QuakerOats;1213894 wrote:What is emotional about being cognizant of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans do NOT want obamacare, even though it has now been force fed to us for over 3 years? It is a simple fact. Most Americans see it as major theft of more of their liberty, and substantially more growth of a federal government that is completely out of control.

What you just described is a democracy, which we aren't. As such, what the "majority of Americans want (emotional motivation)" is not necessarily the final factor.

Also, what you just said is not the same as the dichotomy you stated before: "November '12 --- we either regain freedom, or the free republic is dead forever."

The word "forever" is an assumption that has been thrown around before, and was not the case. It's very much "the sky is falling" language. While I might agree that this is bad for the country, it is illogical to use it to push for a candidate that isn't currently involved in any direct way (and is involved in indirect ways that might be counter-intuitive to wanting it defeated). It boils down a construct against bad policy to an ad hominem false dichotomy.

QuakerOats;1213894 wrote:To be chastised for being passionate about preserving freedom and liberty, and preventing government from devouring another 20% of the economy, is somewhat astounding in my opinion.

Passion is a wonderful thing, but it also makes stupid decisions if unaccompanied by the mind. I'm willing to bet that is why those who are FOR it are so. Their passion for wanting to see a better life for the portion of people this helps who work hard and are just the result of bad circumstances causes them to turn a blind eye to the fact that such a decision isn't constitutional.

Passion and patriotism are wonderful things, but if unaccompanied by sound reasoning, they can become what turns a nation into something other than that which made it great and worthy of our patriotism.

O-Trap;1213879 wrote: IF Romney wins, who wants to take bets on whether or not he repeals it? I'll start a vBookie thread if enough people are interested.

I will take that bet and wager one million dollars. Obamacares takes an act of Congress (60 votes now) to repeal. Romney will not have the authority to repeal it. Please send me a PM and we can make arrangements on your payment to me.

We have had 3 years to digest this monstrosity. As yet, most who voted for it still have not even read it, or understand its ramifications. Further, unelected bureaucrats will be writing 3 million pages (per legal scholars) of regulations to intrepret the 2,700 unread pages of legislation. This is ridiculous, as most Americans know. This is why, along with the cost, and the fact that this does NOTHING to improve CARE, that the vast majority of Americans oppose obamacare. These are not "unreasoned" positions. The legislation only passed because votes were bought; we know this. Thus, there exists yet another good reason to repeal it, in order that the will of the people be done, instead of political kickbacks ruling the day.

The bill was mislabeled, it is unaffordable, it is punitive, its regulations infringe on constitutional rights (see Catholic Church), and it is, without question, the largest legislative disaster ever passed in the congress. It is obvious that is was forced through and passed by radical liberals. These are the same people who have systematically been carving away at Americans' liberties for several decades now, on an incremental basis, with this being perhaps one of their largest grabs to date.

We can continue down this path to complete enslavement by government, or we can begin the rollback (that actually began with the 2010 elections) and try to win back some of our freedoms. It is pretty sad to have to make such a statement ..."win back some of our freedoms..." bizarre.

Because of this ruling in the future if my business can survive I will not be hiring anyone full time, those who presently work will work more for less and work additional jobs task.

The job market is now a part time employment career…….. welcome America to Socialism

Note: With my trash shopper gun safe I’m going out now and buying myself a few rifles for the future also..

What does the SCOTUS ruling mean for you? Click on the link and find out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/?hpid=z2

Oh, by the way, does this ruling --- mandating to ALL Americans ---- mean that the waivers granted by, and to, Friends Of Obama, are null and void?

I await your responses.

Belly35;1213915 wrote:Because of this ruling in the future if my business can survive I will not be hiring anyone full time, those who presently work will work more for less and work additional jobs task.

The job market is now a part time employment career…….. welcome America to Socialism

Note: With my trash shopper gun safe I’m going out now and buying myself a few rifles for the future also..

For small business owners you will be able to opt out of providing health insurance and make out like a bandit. I have been to many AHCA conferences and plan on being able to hire more. So send me your good ones and they can work for me.

I love how the news articles state it's a "victory for Obama". Of course it is:

Obama: 1

Individual Liberty, the Constitution, Freedom: 0

John Roberts, another stain on the legacy of GWB.

Belly35;1213915 wrote:Because of this ruling in the future if my business can survive I will not be hiring anyone full time, those who presently work will work more for less and work additional jobs task.

The job market is now a part time employment career…….. welcome America to Socialism

Note: With my trash shopper gun safe I’m going out now and buying myself a few rifles for the future also..

I agree. All those who have been on the sidelines relative to possible new hiring, will now remain on the sideline, or revert to temps etc...... the unintended consequences will now begin to manifest themselves in a more permanent basis as economic reality takes hold.

We sit and watch Europe burn, and then allow fools like obama/pelosi/reid to lead us down the same path.

QuakerOats;1213918 wrote:Oh, by the way, does this ruling --- mandating to ALL Americans ---- mean that the waivers granted by, and to, Friends Of Obama, are null and void?

I await your responses.

First off you know the waivers are temporary right? Second, I really don't see how making everyone have personal responsibility to have basic health insurance is the same as making you buy any product. I can go to the hospital right now without the ability to pay and they are required to provide all needed services. If I went to Kroger because I was starving, Kroger can throw me to the curb. Big difference.

Bigdogg;1213912 wrote:I will take that bet and wager one million dollars. Obamacares takes an act of Congress (60 votes now) to repeal. Romney will not have the authority to repeal it. Please send me a PM and we can make arrangements on your payment to me.

I was actually planning on serving as the bookie and pitting you Dems and Repubs against each other. Also, I was suggesting in my post that he wouldn't, so even if it wouldn't take the "executive order" which has been so loosely thrown around in the last 12 years, I still don't think he'd repeal it.

QuakerOats;1213913 wrote:We have had 3 years to digest this monstrosity. As yet, most who voted for it still have not even read it, or understand its ramifications.

See the PATRIOT Act and the NDAA as well. Congress and their respective constituencies seem to have a knack for voting on that with which they aren't familiar.

QuakerOats;1213913 wrote:Further, unelected bureaucrats will be writing 3 million pages (per legal scholars) of regulations to intrepret the 2,700 unread pages of legislation. This is ridiculous, as most Americans know. This is why, along with the cost, and the fact that this does NOTHING to improve CARE, that the vast majority of Americans oppose obamacare.

I agree that it appears to be a gross representation of the ills of bureaucracy.

QuakerOats;1213913 wrote:These are not "unreasoned" positions.

A position is never unreasonable unless it lacks a reasonable construct of ideas supporting it.

QuakerOats;1213913 wrote:The legislation only passed because votes were bought; we know this. Thus, there exists yet another good reason to repeal it, in order that the will of the people be done, instead of political kickbacks ruling the day.

If it does get overturned, I doubt this will be why, though I think it should.

QuakerOats;1213913 wrote:The bill was mislabeled, it is unaffordable, it is punitive, its regulations infringe on constitutional rights (see Catholic Church), and it is, without question, the largest legislative disaster ever passed in the congress.

I may or may not agree with you on the last part (income tax is certainly up there, as are a few other programs), but it's certainly troubling.

QuakerOats;1213913 wrote:It is obvious that is was forced through and passed by radical liberals.

The swing vote coming from an appointee of GWB's ... though I think most of the Republican party is "liberal" by historical definition, anyway, so I suppose I can agree.

QuakerOats;1213913 wrote:It is pretty sad to have to make such a statement ..."win back some of our freedoms..." bizarre.

Agreed, and the vast majority of Americans seem to give it little-to-no thought.

All throughout the (minimal) debate over Obamacare, Democrats swore up and down "This is not a tax!!" Now John Roberts says it's a tax.

Would it have passed in March 2010 if Dems were honest and actually called it a tax?

Looks like a short victory for the President, but seems to me the Court really just passed the buck, saying this is a tax and was the will of the Congress, not us.

Could hurt the President really.
But, while I am not a total fan of the Act, it was needed in some sense. And more is needed to fix healthcare. The ramifications are still largely unknown.

That said, I have no idea how Congress can repeal this. No way the Senate votes to repeal large portions.
Posters themselves said they wanted a do nothing Congress, by default then, the law stands.

I also don't into the oh my God, this is end of libery crap. Give it up, take a chill pill,

Bigdogg;1213919 wrote:For small business owners you will be able to opt out of providing health insurance and make out like a bandit.

So why grow your business beyond "small business?" If you can hire either part-timers, contractors (foreign or domestic, foreign being the more affordable option), why grow your employee base?

Bigdogg;1213919 wrote:I have been to many AHCA conferences and plan on being able to hire more. So send me your good ones and they can work for me.

Plan on being able to hire more based on what?

Bigdogg;1213923 wrote:First off you know the waivers are temporary right? Second, I really don't see how making everyone have personal responsibility to have basic health insurance is the same as making you buy any product.

Everyone already is personally responsible. If you have insurance, you are responsible for keeping it and going through the process to claim when necessary. If you do not have insurance, you are responsible for your medical costs (or you can rely on the benevolence of others).

This isn't mandating responsibility. It is mandating HOW you are responsible: through the purchase of a "service" (moreso than a product).

Bigdogg;1213923 wrote:I can go to the hospital right now without the ability to pay and they are required to provide all needed services.

Then why are we doing this again? It's apparent that nobody is being turned away, and that we don't have people dying in the streets that would otherwise be saved by some sort of insurance plan that we, as a nation, can't particularly afford.

I actually have a fundamental problem with privately owned property, services, business, company, etc. being forced to provide for free. But hey, isn't that the American dream?

ptown_trojans_1;1213941 wrote:Looks like a short victory for the President, but seems to me the Court really just passed the buck, saying this is a tax and was the will of the Congress, not us.

Could hurt the President really.
But, while I am not a total fan of the Act, it was needed in some sense. And more is needed to fix healthcare. The ramifications are still largely unknown.

That said, I have no idea how Congress can repeal this. No way the Senate votes to repeal large portions.
Posters themselves said they wanted a do nothing Congress, by default then, the law stands.

I also don't into the oh my God, this is end of libery crap. Give it up, take a chill pill,

Sorry, I refuse.

Which area of commerce may the government not penalize (sorry, tax) someone for not participating in?

While I don't think a "chill pill" is the appropriate option, I also don't think this means liberty is gone forever.

So, if Congress can tax interstate unaction, I assume the EV tax will be passing soon? After all, how better to drive the liberal agenda than just pass taxes againt products that we are supposed to buy and use. Green energy tax here we come.

Don't buy a car above a certain mpg, tax.
Don't buy a GM, tax.
Don't update and "green" your home, tax.
Use over a certain amount of energy, tax.

Congress must be having one giant circle jerk, the possiblities are limitless now. Tax the American public into submission, make them do what you want.

ptown_trojans_1;1213941 wrote:...


Posters themselves said they wanted a do nothing Congress, by default then, the law stands.

...

That was me....and yes the law stands. If we only had a do nothing congress the certainty of things would enable the true producers to understand the impact of such legislation and working a way that best benefits the private sector. People will learn how than manner of operation is and adapt to such an economy. It takes time....if we could only get the House to stop mucking things up so we could gain some certainty an have time to adapt to it.

Bigdogg;1213923 wrote:First off you know the waivers are temporary right? Second, I really don't see how making everyone have personal responsibility to have basic health insurance is the same as making you buy any product. I can go to the hospital right now without the ability to pay and they are required to provide all needed services. If I went to Kroger because I was starving, Kroger can throw me to the curb. Big difference.

Would we not already have "personal responsibility" for our health care by a) accepting the fact that our health is our's to take care of and b) purchasing any necessary level of adequate coverage should we so choose?

Also, you state "making everyone"... I'm not sold that the US government "making" anyone do anything is protecting and preserving freedom and liberty. It seems to me that it would be encroaching on - and dangerously close to trampling on - said freedoms when it begins "making" me do anything.

But, as someone else eluded to... if we the people elect those who voted for the measure, then our complaints are more about our own shortcomings. (Or, it could be note, that those who were elected have changed since they were elected.)

ps: When conservatives vote the way liberals want, the conservatives are growing more enlightened, growing in character, etc. If a liberal sides with the conservatives, the "evil" conservatives did it again, bought some off, etc.

Whatevs.

cruiser_96;1213956 wrote:Would we not already have "personal responsibility" for our health care by a) accepting the fact that our health is our's to take care of and b) purchasing any necessary level of adequate coverage should we so choose?

Stop it with that rationale of personal responsibility.

My bad, Con... My bad.

So, by 2014 people who don't have healthcare will be taxed $95 or 1%, whichever is greater, than by 2016 it swells to $695 or 2%, whichever is greater. Sounds fair to me. :rolleyes: Has anyone seen the cutoff for the poor yet, or has that part not been dug out of the giant 2700 page report yet? This thing is going to be a giant piece of crap and will swell the government massively. Anyone who thinks a 2700 page bill is the solution to any problem is mentally deficient.

Let's see, healthcare in this country is a giant bureaucracy and doesn't cover everyone, I know let's make the bureaucracy even more of a mess and expand the government when we can least afford it.

I imagine a lot of people are just going to go ahead and pay the tax, no way you're getting coverage for less than $695 a year.

cruiser_96;1213956 wrote:ps: When conservatives vote the way liberals want, the conservatives are growing more enlightened, growing in character, etc. If a liberal sides with the conservatives, the "evil" conservatives did it again, bought some off, etc.

Whatevs.

Or vice versa. Considering that at least one conservative person on this thread has blamed Bush for putting Roberts (the swing vote for this deal) on the Supreme Court.

Wait a minute...does that mean the hardcore libs were right about blaming Bush for everything that's still going wrong?!?

Obama broke his no new taxes for anyone making under $250K, what a shocker.

tk421;1213966 wrote:Obama broke his no new taxes for anyone making under $250K, what a shocker.

As deemed by the Chief Justice, who was nominated by ...