Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 21 Dec '13 23:13
    I was just thinking today... I October, the Republicans wanted to delay the individual mandate as a condition of approving the budget.

    Now, Obama has delayed the individual mandate, and even further, has allowed people to keep "junk" health care plans.

    Interestingly, some still think the Republicans are the morons here.
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    21 Dec '13 23:29
    Originally posted by techsouth
    I was just thinking today... I October, the Republicans wanted to delay the individual mandate as a condition of approving the budget.

    Now, Obama has delayed the individual mandate, and even further, has allowed people to keep "junk" health care plans.

    Interestingly, some still think the Republicans are the morons here.
    This is a distortion; Obama is delaying the individual mandate penalty for a small subset of the population who have had individual plans cancelled, not the delay of the mandate for everyone the Republicans demanded. The present change will affect less than 500,000 people.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-20/obama-aides-say-more-to-gain-coverage-under-aca-than-canceled.html
  3. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    22 Dec '13 00:12
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    This is a distortion; Obama is delaying the individual mandate penalty for a small subset of the population who have had individual plans cancelled, not the delay of the mandate for everyone the Republicans demanded. The present change will affect less than 500,000 people.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-20/obama-aides-say-more-to-gain-coverage-under-aca-than-canceled.html
    There is, to my untrained legal mind, an argument to be made that the policy amounts to discrimination. I'll find the link.
  4. 22 Dec '13 03:26
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    This is a distortion; Obama is delaying the individual mandate penalty for a small subset of the population who have had individual plans cancelled, not the delay of the mandate for everyone the Republicans demanded. The present change will affect less than 500,000 people.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-20/obama-aides-say-more-to-gain-coverage-under-aca-than-canceled.html
    Hmm. Seems like one party kept insisting that ObamaCare is the "law of the land" back in October.

    Help me out.

    Is it the law of the land or is it not the law of the land?
  5. 22 Dec '13 03:28
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    There is, to my untrained legal mind, an argument to be made that the policy amounts to discrimination. I'll find the link.
    Discrimination? Just because you give certain segments of the populations certain rights above another in no way implies its discrimination, unless Obama declares it so.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    22 Dec '13 03:29
    Originally posted by techsouth
    Hmm. Seems like one party kept insisting that ObamaCare is the "law of the land" back in October.

    Help me out.

    Is it the law of the land or is it not the law of the land?
    See the "Ruling by Fiat" thread. There is a plausible argument that the statute allows such exemptions on the basis of hardship.
  7. 22 Dec '13 03:51
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    See the "Ruling by Fiat" thread. There is a plausible argument that the statute allows such exemptions on the basis of hardship.
    Yes, apply for hardship, they look up your voter reregistration and see if you registered democrat. Then they decide if you get a hardship exemption.

    Nice. Be careful who you offend though. They hold your life in their hands now.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    22 Dec '13 16:57
    Originally posted by techsouth
    Yes, apply for hardship, they look up your voter reregistration and see if you registered democrat. Then they decide if you get a hardship exemption.

    Nice. Be careful who you offend though. They hold your life in their hands now.
    It's impossible to have a rational discussion with right wingers here on this issue.
  9. 22 Dec '13 17:23
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    It's impossible to have a rational discussion with right wingers here on this issue.
    That is true for any Obama-related issue. It's really too bad, too, because there are rational reasons to have diminished confidence in Obama's abilities, for whatever reasons. Finding the reasons behind the situation and seeking practicable solutions is stymied by the rhetoric and finger pointing.
  10. 22 Dec '13 20:48
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    It's impossible to have a rational discussion with right wingers here on this issue.
    And it's impossible to get a left-winger to even see the downside of too much power without checks and balances.

    I guess we are to assume that government decisions are above politics. THAT is more irrational than anything I've heard from a right winger.
  11. 22 Dec '13 21:02
    Originally posted by techsouth
    And it's impossible to get a left-winger to even see the downside of too much power without checks and balances.

    I guess we are to assume that government decisions are above politics. THAT is more irrational than anything I've heard from a right winger.
    Too much power without checks and balances tends toward corruption and tyranny. It (too much power) can reside in a leftist or rightist government. I think those on both the far right and far left who are actually in the political class, are equally intent on gaining a dangerous amount of such power.

    Those of us who are not in the political class, but who lean to the far right or far left, tend to overlook or be ignorant of the obvious signs that the politicians on "our" side are just as intent on power, as are the politicians on "the other" side. And that state of affairs is just what the politicians want.
  12. 22 Dec '13 21:19
    Originally posted by JS357
    Too much power without checks and balances tends toward corruption and tyranny. It (too much power) can reside in a leftist or rightist government. I think those on both the far right and far left who are actually in the political class, are equally intent on gaining a dangerous amount of such power.

    Those of us who are not in the political class, but who ...[text shortened]... he politicians on "the other" side. And that state of affairs is just what the politicians want.
    On the right there are two groups, you have the Constitutionalists and you have the Mainstream Republicans.

    It seems to me that most of the 'right wingers' here are of the Constitutionalists variety. Try to not get us confused with the kind of right wingers you describe.
  13. 23 Dec '13 02:06
    Originally posted by JS357
    That is true for any Obama-related issue. It's really too bad, too, because there are rational reasons to have diminished confidence in Obama's abilities, for whatever reasons. Finding the reasons behind the situation and seeking practicable solutions is stymied by the rhetoric and finger pointing.
    Think about this... the people being given the waiver are people who had their "junk" plans canceled EXACTLY AS OBAMACARE INTENDED. And the hardship they are facing is the increased cost due to requiring everyone to pay the same rate regardless of pre-existing condition and requiring everyone to have Rolls-Royce plans. All of this is EXACTLY AS OBAMACARE INTENDED.

    So now they are granting people a "hardship" exception when the only "hardship" they are facing is OBAMACARE ITSELF.

    It would be nice to have a rational discussion, but that is not possible with people who can't even admit that ObamaCare itself is grossly misaligned with economic reality.

    You think conservatives have a knee jerk opposition to anything Obama does. You're just projecting your own bias onto us.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    23 Dec '13 10:28
    Originally posted by techsouth
    Think about this... the people being given the waiver are people who had their "junk" plans canceled EXACTLY AS OBAMACARE INTENDED. And the hardship they are facing is the increased cost due to requiring everyone to pay the same rate regardless of pre-existing condition and requiring everyone to have Rolls-Royce plans. All of this is EXACTLY AS OBAMACAR ...[text shortened]... ve a knee jerk opposition to anything Obama does. You're just projecting your own bias onto us.
    It was intended, but it causes a hardship for a relatively small number of people (somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000). So they are being granted the "hardship" exemption. Balanced against that, is the millions of people that will finally be able to get health insurance at an affordable price. Therefore, the law remains beneficial to society as a whole.
  15. 23 Dec '13 13:36 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    It was intended, but it causes a hardship for a relatively small number of people (somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000). So they are being granted the "hardship" exemption. Balanced against that, is the millions of people that will finally be able to get health insurance at an affordable price. Therefore, the law remains beneficial to society as a whole.
    The the people being granted the hardship exemption are in no more of a hardship position than anyone who is under the threat of the penalty. They are faced with very expensive insurance that they must buy or face a penalty. The fact that they used to have insurance doesn't make the hardship any worse than people who didn't previously have insurance, it's just their story hurts Obama more politically.

    And where do you find these millions of people finally able to get insurance at an affordable price? If it is unaffordable (i.e. a hardship) for people who used to have insurance, how is it affordable for people that didn't have it before?

    Edit: Seems like the "hardship" exemption is being used to prevent the "hardship" to Obama that would come if these people got on TV and started telling their story.