Will Obama pay a political price for his lies?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Why UUU putting down people with less costly plans?....some people can not afford a larger plan....yours is probaly paid for by the company U work for....people bought plans that they could afford on their own

You mean just like the people having their plans cancelled? Carry on.

[justplugit]

I still would like to know, where in the Constitution does it allow the Govt. to decide what you need for yourself, and if what your buying doesn't come up to their standards, you have to buy what they tell you to or pay a penalty?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by justplugit

I still would like to know, where in the Constitution does it allow the Govt. to decide what you need for yourself, and if what your buying doesn't come up to their standards, you have to buy what they tell you to or pay a penalty?

When the Supreme Court was bought and declared it a tax and not a penalty .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by buckman

When the Supreme Court was bought and declared it a tax and not a penalty .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yeah, that pesky liberal Roberts appointed by Obama......

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Yeah, that pesky liberal Roberts appointed by Obama......

You're half right as usual
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Yeah, that pesky liberal Roberts appointed by Obama......

Yeah, that pesky whatever (progressive/neo-con/establishment Republican/independent/goofy or bribed?/whatever) Roberts appointed by quasi-progressive/compassionate conservative/mixed bag/whatever (oh yeah that dumb as a rock) Bush. The labels really matter,don't they? Let us not pay attention to the actual constitutionallity of Roberts' decision, lets use shifty labels to end the discussion.

Actually, Roberts' calling it a tax is not found in the Constitution. The Constitution prescribes two specific taxes that the federal gvt. can impose and a third specific type, the direct income tax, was added by ammendment. There is no general, unspecified tax allowed by the Constitution. The Obamacare tax does not fit into any of the three specific types of taxes listed in the Constitution. Roberts justifying his decision by the government's power to tax implies there is a general, unlimited power to tax. There is no such power in the Constitution given to the federal government. Why he did it only he knows. If he felt personally that it was the moral thing to do, or that if was the best social or economic answer to medical costs, or if thuggish politicos threatened to expose some deep dark horrible secret about him or his family, only he knows. But none of those motivations are judicially justified.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Yeah, that pesky whatever (progressive/neo-con/establishment Republican/independent/goofy or bribed?/whatever) Roberts appointed by quasi-progressive/compassionate conservative/mixed bag/whatever (oh yeah that dumb as a rock) Bush. The labels really matter,don't they? Let us not pay attention to the actual constitutionallity of Roberts' decision, lets use shifty labels to end the discussion.

Actually, Roberts' calling it a tax is not found in the Constitution. The Constitution prescribes two specific taxes that the federal gvt. can impose and a third specific type, the direct income tax, was added by ammendment. There is no general, unspecified tax allowed by the Constitution. The Obamacare tax does not fit into any of the three specific types of taxes listed in the Constitution. Roberts justifying his decision by the government's power to tax implies there is a general, unlimited power to tax. There is no such power in the Constitution given to the federal government. Why he did it only he knows. If he felt personally that it was the moral thing to do, or that if was the best social or economic answer to medical costs, or if thuggish politicos threatened to expose some deep dark horrible secret about him or his family, only he knows. But none of those motivations are judicially justified.

You sir, put my thoughts in a much more articulate way, then I ever could.
Well put!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by buckman

You sir, put my thoughts in a much more articulate way, then I ever could.
Well put!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, especially so when it comes to the Constitution.

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by likwid

You mean just like the people having their plans cancelled? Carry on.

I know U believe in Obama and believe like him that policies R being cancelled because they R inferior to his debacled plan ....U know he is a liar.... cancellations of his doing... where insurance companies would not cover condoms or abortions does not mean people had bad policies....some of them cancelltions had great policies....UUUU should explain it to this lady Edi Littlefield.... and your president bullied this person....if all of yours or partially paid for by a company UUU may be losing yours next year....and he blames the insurance companies

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...71710423780446

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

I know U believe in Obama and believe like him that policies R being cancelled because they R inferior to his debacled plan ....U know he is a liar.... cancellations of his doing... where insurance companies would not cover condoms or abortions does not mean people had bad policies....some of them cancelltions had great policies....UUUU should explain it to this lady Edi Littlefield.... and your president bullied this person....if all of yours or partially paid for by a company UUU may be losing yours next year....and he blames the insurance companies

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...71710423780446

You know, before you start swinging and patting yourself on the back, you should make sure you know what you're talking about. Maybe use paragraphs, and intelligible language.

If you read the article, she lost her insurance almost a year ago, before the mandated date. Not now. Why is this news now? Oh right, it fits your agenda *now*. So United long pulled out of Cali after announcing it, what? Oh almost a year prior! So it was a known fact it was going away.

Do you take people in when they lose their house to foreclosure when they knew they were going to lose it for a year? No, you tell them "too effing bad you leech!"

But this is about cancer. Cancer is bad, everyone knows someone who's died of cancer.

As far as my personal insurance, I won't be losing mine, we've long changed plans with BCBS that fit the model for Obamacare. And infact its less expensive than my prior insurance. Clean the mud off your face.

As far as my beliefs in the system, I don't trust it, sorry to burst your bubble. And I think people who throw around "oh I know YOU trust him" are complete losers. Enjoy being on ignore.