In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 553
Online now 516 Record: 4850 (6/6/2012)
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen - Dennis Prager
Let's do it!
Give them the gas, monkey dude!
Just when you think political discussions couldn't get any wackier, someone comes out and sets a new standard for wacky.
Getting the liberal Democrats a pacifier and blankie would assuage their hurt feelings quicker and be far less expensive.
David Dow says that this law is "clearly constitutional." If that were the case, he and Obama would have nothing to worry about, and it wouldn't be necessary to preemptively attack the Court and it's presumed ruling. As a matter of fact, if it were "clearly consitutional" it should have never gotten to the Supreme Court.
I so want someone who is a Newt Gingrich supporter to jump in this thread. Please God please God tell me youre there oh Lord
"Dude looks like a friggin rock star" - TrojanWarrior1 on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
I just wrote him an email asking him why people who didn't want to participate in health insurance were now going to be forced to do it. Not a good idea to bash the court while they are still considering this.
Serious Question: Are you really not familar with the reason for the mandate?
He and others seem to be sure how the Court will rule. I think it could go either way on this.
Without the mandate it would never work. That does not make the mandate constitutional.
Unbowed, Unbent, Unbroken
True. I believe that the mandate is constitutional, but we are going to have to wait to hear what the SCOTUS decides.
I asked that question to Metro because it didn't appear that he understood why a mandate was put in place.
Is there something really wrong with the following statement?:
A decision striking down the health care law would be a statement that the only people entitled to health care are the people who can afford it.
Back during the health care debates the first time around, I proposed a single payer system that allowed for rudimentary care for all, set up little clinics run by doctors or PA's in strip malls and such where anyone can walk in and get basic care. Could also be expanded to cover catostrophic care as well. Everything else ie a higher level of care could be purchased privately.
This solves many problems and would be acceptable to 90% of the population. Those of means get to feel smuggier as poor people are not getting as good as care as they are, poor people are taken care of and are not abusing emergency rooms or dying in the streets. Everyone but the far extremes are happy.
If they think it is unconstitutional, it is their constitutional duty to strike it down. I doubt that any of the nine believe that only those who can afford it should get health care. Few if any in this country go without it now. The Court has to deal with the law as presented to them.
This post was edited by David Lima 2 years ago
I understand the mandate. Again, my theme is Congress was overreaching on this one.
Haha! I will go ahead and admit it. You've completely lost me.
It's okay. It happens to the best of us. :-)
Because socialism doesn't work unless you can create laws that compel ownership of other people's money for your goods/services?
Cry Havoc; and let slip the dogs of war!
This is actually where socialized medicine shines - bumps, cuts, colds, bruises, preventative care, initial diagnosis.
Where it really falls apart is the standard of care when something is REALLY wrong. Then it's wait lists and quotas and a ton of economic disincentive that ultimately leads to a dramatic decrease in the quality of catastrophic care and, eventually, a decrease in innovation. I mean, why should any biotech firm take huge risks with investor capital if there is insufficient ability to generate a return?
Some form of standardized basic care in place of some of the existing programs might be a better use of funds - but I can't imagine any scenario where the libs don't just push it back to one health care system, and the corresponding problems that come with it (particularly in a non-homogenous society).
This post was edited by phear_SC 2 years ago
Agreed. It looks like they will overturn it now by a slim margin, but this is by no means a done deal. There is precedent for lots of opinion movement during the review process.
There is no question healthcare needs to be reformed. The reality of this situation is in several parts....One: Obama's brand of healthcare is unacceptable as it is designed. It has not reformed healthcare but expanded it. Secondly, the cost of it is so unreasonable that it is not acceptable. Thirdly, we do not know who these people who are the target of this benefit. Fourthly, the government can't manage Medicare adequately, how is it assumed that they will manage healthcare of all America reasonably? Lastly, and most importantly, how can the government legally force all Americans to buy this healthcare against their will? I guess only the libs understand this. That is why they depend Uncle Sugar so much to manage their lives.
I read this type of stuff over and over again and I am baffled. How did conservatives so quickly forget that the mandate was their creation? This was their idea. How did republicans so quickly forget that they said they preferred Hillary over Obama because she was more moderate...........because she was pushing for a plan that included mandates?
Flash Forward to November and republicans are going to vote for the guy that publicaly urged Obama to follow his state plan (which includes a mandate) as the model for a federal level program.
It could just be me, but this is really is freaking crazy.
Why does it matter whose idea it was? A turd is a turd regardless of whose ass it comes from
This post was edited by TrojanMonkey 2 years ago
I beg your pardon? What part of Obama's plan had any of the recommendations of the GOP. We all agreed that healthcare reform was needed. However we did not agree that what Obama was offering was the solution. Republicans preferred Hillary? I did not prefer Hillary or Obama. There was a mandate but I am not sure that this is the appeal of Romney. This was one aspect of the man no doubt but I am thinking that the GOP will take anyone but more of Obama.
Read up on the those who have pushed for a mandate over the last 20 years. Let me know who pushed the idea and then please let me know when those supporting the mandate changed their position on the mandate.
If you do that, I think we might be able to have a pretty good discussion on the topic.
aside from the fact this is about health insurance not taking over health care, and this plan actually keeps the insurance in private hands not the governments, doesn't medicare have lower management costs than any insurance company?
Bill just because they voted against it does not mean the ACA is not filled with many Republican recommendations. The Mandate was certainly one of them.
The operative word is "should." Conservatives on the court do not seem to care about the fact that the law is clearly constitutional. They are ruling based on their politics. That is what worries Obama.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports