2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Roy Karrde]

Kurai you still are not getting it, by rejecting the Commerce Clause argument, and providing a path forward, they are explicitly stating that the previous path was not unconstitutional. I do not know how many times I need to get it into your brain. At this point it is getting kind of sad.

Edit: By the way do you have any proof that Dark Sage's father does not know what he is talking about in this matter?

[kurai]

since it is simply an appeal to authority, proof is evidenced by the lack of citation provided

the majority judgement defines the constitutional limits of the taxing and spending clause. they do not reject the use of the commerce clause.

it does not define anything else; the constitutionality of other clauses is speculative inference, not decisive precedent

(if it did define anything else, you would be able to provide a citation of where this is defined, as this would be the exact place that legal scholars and future legislators would look)

[Leon-IH]

Well it was a big deal, just curious as to what sparked the rally toward the end.

Simple: change scared people and made some investors uncomfortable, then people calmed the fuck down and stop being stupid.

[Dark Sage]

Edit: By the way do you have any proof that Dark Sage's father does not know what he is talking about in this matter?

Strong words, Roy, seeing as you yourself have in the past called my dad "biased" and questioned his ability to teach properly, given his personal views.

[Gavin Luper]

I honestly don't get how the US does not have some form of universal health care, like every other developed, democratic nation with a high standard of living. The fact that something as basic as Obama's proposal is so controversial and so fiercely opposed is frankly disgusting, I reckon.

[Roy Karrde]

I honestly don't get how the US does not have some form of universal health care, like every other developed, democratic nation with a high standard of living. The fact that something as basic as Obama's proposal is so controversial and so fiercely opposed is frankly disgusting, I reckon.

We do have Medicare which could be argued as a form of Universal Health Care, and honestly it is a cluster fuck, it is abused, doctors are starting to refuse to take it now, etc etc. And mind you just because other developed democratic nations have it, does not make it a good thing. One could argue that the NHS is a terrible system in Britain, and as we are seeing in Greece right now, their Universal Health Care system is on the verge of complete destruction because of their debt.

Are there good systems out there? Of course, but you have the basic fear that any system implemented here will be either

A: Completely like Medicare and have the same problems.
B: Have some of the big wait times and problems seen in Canada or Britain
C: Something that could leave the citizens screwed if the Government is forced to start cutting back.

[Gavin Luper]

We do have Medicare which could be argued as a form of Universal Health Care, and honestly it is a cluster fuck, it is abused, doctors are starting to refuse to take it now, etc etc. And mind you just because other developed democratic nations have it, does not make it a good thing. One could argue that the NHS is a terrible system in Britain, and as we are seeing in Greece right now, their Universal Health Care system is on the verge of complete destruction because of their debt.

Are there good systems out there? Of course, but you have the basic fear that any system implemented here will be either

A: Completely like Medicare and have the same problems.
B: Have some of the big wait times and problems seen in Canada or Britain
C: Something that could leave the citizens screwed if the Government is forced to start cutting back.

If doctors can refuse to accept it, that's not universal health care, is it?

Also, I was under the impression that Medicare in the US is extremely minimal and restricted only to the elderly?

There are problems with schemes that go overboard, but this is not the case in most countries with a universal health care program. The aim should be to create some kind of safety net that massively eases the burden on citizens. Surely the right thing to do is investigate ways in which this might be possible and also economically viable, not just oppose the idea outright? How is this proposal a bad thing?

[Dark Sage]

Thank you Gavin.

You know, in 2010, Rush Limbaugh threatened to move to Costa Rica if the bill became law. He has yet to make good on that threat (there was always hope), but if he ever does, it would be ironic; Costa Rica has universal health care coverage.

[Roy Karrde]

If doctors can refuse to accept it, that's not universal health care, is it?

There are doctors that do accept it, but some have refused to accept new patients, and others are referring their patients to others. The problem is that so much red tape and problems with the Government system makes it where doctors are underpaid or paid very late for what they perform. If the program was expanded to be the dominant health care system in the U.S. with those same problems, there is a very good chance that many doctors would leave the system all together and have a massive shortage. Remember Doctor's are workers as well, if a program is paying out less and less for services, there becomes a point that they cannot keep accepting that program. And just because a program is universal, does not mean it is universal for all doctors.

Also, I was under the impression that Medicare in the US is extremely minimal and restricted only to the elderly?

Honestly I do not know all the specifics of it.

There are problems with schemes that go overboard, but this is not the case in most countries with a universal health care program. The aim should be to create some kind of safety net that massively eases the burden on citizens. Surely the right thing to do is investigate ways in which this might be possible and also economically viable, not just oppose the idea outright? How is this proposal a bad thing?

It can start off as a good thing, but can also quickly spiral out into many bad problems with misuse, red tape, lack of resources, etc etc etc. For example we have a hospital in Dallas known as Parkland, where people can get free health care, because of that it is abused quite frequently, and as such wait times just to a doctor can go as long as 18 hours, we even had a person die in the waiting room.

And of course we can say that we can find ways to make it economically viable, but Medicare even with it's care of the elderly is already running into the red ink. And there will be massive need of restructuring just to save it or be forced to cut it all together. And of course there is the question of, if our country goes the way of Greece one day, and all we have is Government Health Care, where are the people going to turn when that goes to shit?

[Dark Sage]

I, for one, am getting a big laugh at the GOP calling this "the biggest tax on the middle class in history".

Originally, the Act was going to fine people who didn't buy insurance. Now, instead, they're going to tax people who don't buy it. The tax you pay will be the same as the fine you would have paid if it hadn't been interpreted as a tax.

So what difference does it make whether it's a tax or a fine? The end result would be the same. You'd have to be a big idiot to believe that the system had actually changed by this new interpretation of it.

[Roy Karrde]

I, for one, am getting a big laugh at the GOP calling this "the biggest tax on the middle class in history".

Originally, the Act was going to fine people who didn't buy insurance. Now, instead, they're going to tax people who don't buy it. The tax you pay will be the same as the fine you would have paid if it hadn't been interpreted as a tax.

So what difference does it make whether it's a tax or a fine? The end result would be the same. You'd have to be a big idiot to believe that the system had actually changed by this new interpretation of it.

I think the difference is that there was no real legal penalty for not paying the fine, there was talk the IRS could deduct it from your return but that is it. Making it a tax, and now you can have some massive legal problems from the IRS if you do not pay it including going to jail.

Plus you know, having Obama spend a year during a terrible recession to create a tax hike while the economy and people suffered just kind of looks bad.

[Dark Sage]

There's no difference, Roy. Not paying a fine that you've been told to pay is a crime.

Not paying a tax that you're required to pay is a crime.

In both cases, you either buy insurance, or pay some sort of penalty. And the penalty is the same, whether it's a tax or a fine.

[Roy Karrde]

There's no difference, Roy. Not paying a fine that you've been told to pay is a crime.

Not paying a tax that you're required to pay is a crime.

In both cases, you either buy insurance, or pay some sort of penalty. And the penalty is the same, whether it's a tax or a fine.

Umm actually there is a difference, a fine is not enforceable as a crime outside of deduction from your tax return.

The bill imposed very strict regulations when it came to the fine, saying the IRS could not engage in "freezing bank accounts, seizing assets or pursuing criminal charges"

However those were the penalty for a fine, by changing it to a tax, I would think that it would fall under normal taxation penalty which does include those things.

[Dark Sage]

Seems like the best way to avoid it, then, would be for people to buy insurace, which is the whole point of the law!

[Roy Karrde]

Seems like the best way to avoid it, then, would be for people to buy insurace, which is the whole point of the law!

Of course, but in a down economy, and being rather healthy, it is easy for people, especially young people to forgo insurance so you can spend money elsewhere. The thing is, that the only way for Obamacare to work is if people buy insurance, with out it the system falls apart as the insurance companies do not have enough money coming in to cover the pre existing conditions.

[Dark Sage]

They have the funds to do it. They just want to make more profit.

And that's exactly why the GOP wanted to kill the Act. They sympathize with the greedy insurance companies, and all the other big corporations.

[Dark Sage]

And by the way, Roy, you can easily say, "I'm healthy, I don't need insurance!"

I would have thought the same thing when I was twenty-one. Then I got hit by a car, needed surgery to fix my legs, was bedridden for five months, and my parents needed to hire a nurse to help.

Fortunately, my folks had insurance. But if it happens to someone who doesn't, he's going to wish that the accident had killed him.

Edit: and by the way... The idiot who hit me didn't even have auto insurance. I know for a fact that that's wrong, and it caused us all sorts of trouble. The jackass.

[Roy Karrde]

And by the way, Roy, you can easily say, "I'm healthy, I don't need insurance!"

I would have thought the same thing when I was twenty-one. Then I got hit by a car, needed surgery to fix my legs, was bedridden for five months, and my parents needed to hire a nurse to help.

Fortunately, my folks had insurance. But if it happens to someone who doesn't, he's going to wish that the accident had killed him.

Edit: and by the way... The idiot who hit me didn't even have auto insurance. I know for a fact that that's wrong, and it caused us all sorts of trouble. The jackass.

Just to point out,

A: Auto insurance is required by the state, not the federal government.

B: While that is horrible it happened to you man, the vast majority of people have that never happen to them. I mean I understand what you get as a preventive thing, but how many people honestly have that happen to them?

[Dark Sage]

B: While that is horrible it happened to you man, the vast majority of people have that never happen to them. I mean I understand what you get as a preventive thing, but how many people honestly have that happen to them?

Not many... But you never know when it will happen. Or when your mother will need expensive medication or treatment because of an illness that you couldn't predict...

Things happen like this happen, Roy, because it's not a perfect world.

[Roy Karrde]

Not many... But you never know when it will happen. Or when your mother will need expensive medication or treatment because of an illness that you couldn't predict...

Things happen like this happen, Roy, because it's not a perfect world.

Oh of course you are right, my sister has preexisting conditions and because of it for a time my parents had to forgo insurance to pay for insurance and her and the rest of us. Honestly when the economy gets this down, for alot of people there is a choice between insurance, or paying the water/electric or tax bill.

[Dark Sage]

How about I propose a health care plan that the GOP is sure to love?

It's basically the same as Obama's plan, but we scrap the mandate. If someone doesn't want to buy insurance, he doesn't have to...

HOWEVER... If he doesn't, and he goes into an emergency room seeking treatment, they get to kick him out like any other deadbeat unless he provides proof that he can pay for it.

And it doesn't matter if he's bleeding from multiple stab wounds and used his last ounce of strength to crawl into the place. No way to pay, too bad.

I'm sure that the heartless leadership of the House would find that to their liking.

[Roy Karrde]

Where does the heartless thing come from? Just because the GOP want's a bit of freedom instead of making it where you have to pay a tax just for being alive, you act as if they are heartless in this situation.

There are ways we can make health care choice more open, to lower the price, and work so that anyone who wants it can have it. But Obama's plan honestly does just the opposite of all that.

[Dark Sage]

Where does the heartless thing come from? Just because the GOP want's a bit of freedom instead of making it where you have to pay a tax just for being alive, you act as if they are heartless in this situation.

You are so naive, Roy. The GOP in Congress want the fat cats that run the insurance companies to keep getting fatter, nothing more. They don't care about grandma getting sick, so long as it isn't their grandma. After all, they can easily afford insurance.

[Roy Karrde]

You are so naive, Roy. The GOP in Congress want the fat cats that run the insurance companies to keep getting fatter, nothing more. They don't care about grandma getting sick, so long as it isn't their grandma. After all, they can easily afford insurance.

So it is all about fat cats? Even though insurance does not have a very large profit margin? It's not about say having a tax just for being alive? It's not about hurting job growth because employers have to stop at a pre made line. It is all about the fat cats, those... same insurance companies that now support Obamacare?

You say the GOP in Congress support the fat cat insurance companies, but it's Obama's plan that is sending subsidies to insurance companies, and it's Obama's plan that made not having insurance a tax, thus driving more business to those fat cat insurance companies, the one that have monopolies in a state because we have yet to raise the state line requirement.

Let me ask you this, I just want one answer. If it is the GOP in Congress trying to support the insurance companies. Why is it the same GOP in Congress wishing to break up the monopoly that those same companies hold over each state?

since it is simply an appeal to authority, proof is evidenced by the lack of citation provided

the majority judgement defines the constitutional limits of the taxing and spending clause. they do not reject the use of the commerce clause.

it does not define anything else; the constitutionality of other clauses is speculative inference, not decisive precedent

(if it did define anything else, you would be able to provide a citation of where this is defined, as this would be the exact place that legal scholars and future legislators would look)

The former clerk for Justice Roberts see's it quite differently and backs up the case that I, and Exile's dad has made.

"The key move in Roberts’ opinion is his conclusion that the individual mandate is actually a sort of tax, and therefore constitutional by virtue of Congress’s unquestioned power to tax. That allows the mandate to stand, yes — but effectively makes the mandate sui generis, and thereby denies the government a new source of regulatory power.

This is why: Roberts does not say that the government may now regulate anything it likes by calling the regulation a tax. He says this mandate can be read as a tax in these circumstances — that is, in light of the fact that it would be unconstitutional on any other ground and the court is supposed to avoid finding statutes unconstitutional if it can — and on these grounds: because it is administered by the IRS through the tax code and operates in many respects like a normal tax. Only if future regulatory schemes can meet all these criteria would they be valid under the taxing power"

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/jo...sing-decision/

As I have said, the Justices laid out a way to make it constitutional, this effects this, and future regulation in showing that using the Commerce clause to try to push this type of regulation is unconstitutional. You can argue, but that does not make you any less wrong.

[Dark Sage]

Let me ask you this, I just want one answer. If it is the GOP in Congress trying to support the insurance companies. Why is it the same GOP in Congress wishing to break up the monopoly that those same companies hold over each state?

First, I want the details of this plan to break up the monopolies. The GOP have not contributed any real details on the plan that they intend to replace the Affordable Health Care Act with should they ever succeed in repealing it.

And besides, doing so and enabling them to sell insurance over state lines would make the insurance companies even more money.

Edit: Btw, see the stock market lately? It had an excellent day today, closing up 277 points. Seems the Supreme Court's ruling may have been a good thing for it.

[Roy Karrde]

First, I want the details of this plan to break up the monopolies. The GOP have not contributed any real details on the plan that they intend to replace the Affordable Health Care Act with should they ever succeed in repealing it.

And besides, doing so and enabling them to sell insurance over state lines would make the insurance companies even more money.

Actually it would make them less money, have you noticed car insurance commercials? Maybe the cute one with the Gecko in it? Car Insurance Companies compete with eachother for the cheapest coverage with the most amount of rewards. They even have a "Price Checker" showing how much each company costs. The same cannot be said for health insurance companies as they maintain a lock on states, they can determine prices not based on competition but how they feel.

Edit: Btw, see the stock market lately? It had an excellent day today, closing up 277 points. Seems the Supreme Court's ruling may have been a good thing for it.

Yeah I am sure it has nothing to do with Germany caving last night and signing a deal that would give money to Greece and the rest and thereby saving the European Union.

[Dark Sage]

Details, Roy... Where are the details on this supposed plan that the GOP is promising?

The say that they will "repeal and reform", but they offer nothing concrete about how this "reform" will work, or what their plan is, if one even exists.

[Roy Karrde]

Details, Roy... Where are the details on this supposed plan that the GOP is promising?

The say that they will "repeal and reform", but they offer nothing concrete about how this "reform" will work, or what their plan is, if one even exists.

My guess would be it would follow many of the plans the GOP put forward during the Obamacare debate, Romney I believe has also put his plan up as well, if you want details you can look at some of those.

[Dark Sage]

I see absolutely none.

Here's something else for you to chew on. Yesterday, you bragged that Romney made $300,000 from donations in the first hour alone after after the ruling. Since that time, his efforts to raise money have resulted in 4.6 million from more that 47 thousand donors, according to his campaign team.

However... Obama's campaign team claims that, despite the fact that he was not making the same specific effort to raise donations during that time, his donations were even higher. Which was the case before the ruling was made on most given days. (They did not give a specific sum.)

Now, there's no proof to back up either of these claims, seeing as they came from the respective campaign teams of each candidate, but if true, it would say a lot.

[Roy Karrde]

I see absolutely none.

Romney's own website has it, so apparently you didn't look very hard.

http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care

And here are some highlights of one of the GOP's health care bills from 2009

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/17/news...lth_care_bill/

Here's something else for you to chew on. Yesterday, you bragged that Romney made $300,000 from donations in the first hour alone after after the ruling. Since that time, his efforts to raise money have resulted in 4.6 million from more that 47 thousand donors, according to his campaign team.

However... Obama's campaign team claims that, despite the fact that he was not making the same specific effort to raise donations during that time, his donations were even higher. Which was the case before the ruling was made on most given days.

Now, there's no proof to back up either of these claims, seeing as they came from the respective campaign teams of each candidate, but if true, it would say a lot.

We have a hard number for Romney, where are the numbers for Obama?

[Dark Sage]

I see...

It seems like those plans are a lot like what we have now, except that they benefit the insurance companies a lot more than the people who actually buy insurance.

I fail to see anything in those plans that would benefit people who actually needed it.

And as for your accusation, where's the proof that Romney's campaign team actually collected that much? Romney has been known for secret bank accounts and being dihonest with his money, you know, but I've been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that because all rich people do it.

We have to take both their words for it, Roy. If you're calling Obama's team a bunch of liars, fine, but in that case, I'm not gonna believe Romney's.

[Roy Karrde]

I see...

It seems like those plans are a lot like what we have now, except that they benefit the insurance companies a lot more than the people who actually buy insurance.

I fail to see anything in those plans that would benefit people who actually needed it.

Again as opposed to Obama's plan that forces people to buy from monopolies or be penalized?

And as for your accusation, where's the proof that Romney's campaign team actually collected that much? Romney has been known for secret bank accounts and being dihonest with his money, you know, but I've been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that because all rich people do it.

You do realize that Political Campaigns can't do that right? Furthermore after the immoral if not illegal activities Obama's Fundraising engaged in 2008, I would not be pointing fingers at anyone.

We have to take both their words for it, Roy. If you're calling Obama's team a bunch of liars, fine, but in that case, I'm not gonna believe Romney's.

Thing is with Romney we have hard and fast numbers, we know how many donators, we know the money donated. Obama has said NOTHING to that effect on it's own numbers. If we are to believe both campaign's shouldn't we have the numbers for both atleast? That is holding both up to the same standard.

[Dark Sage]

Maybe it's simply not their policy to release actual numbers.

Anyway, I've had enough of this for today, I have things to do. I'll leave by saying this: The Affordable Health Care Act has more supporters than you may think.

I was watching live coverage yesterday as the ruling was announced. Quite a crowd of people had gathered outside the Federal Courthouse, and seeing as the crowd's reaction to the ruling was very positive, I'd say that they had come intending to protest the Court's much-expected negative ruling on the measure.

[Roy Karrde]

Maybe it's simply not their policy to release actual numbers.

Really? So why do they release fundraising numbers every month? Maybe, just maybe, they do not actually have the money coming in? And this is part of a pathetic spin to try to stop Romney's victory?

Anyway, I've had enough of this for today, I have things to do. I'll leave by saying this: The Affordable Health Care Act has more supporters than you may think.

I was watching live coverage yesterday as the ruling was announced. Quite a crowd of people had gathered outside the Federal Courthouse, and seeing as the crowd's reaction to the ruling was very positive, I'd say that they had come intending to protest the Court's much-expected negative ruling on the measure.

So we are judging popularity now based on one event we see on TV? By that faulty logic we can go to a Tea Party rally and see that not only does quite alot of people in this country believe that Obama should be voted out, but that Obamacare is wrong.

[Dark Sage]

Really? So why do they release fundraising numbers every month? Maybe, just maybe, they do not actually have the money coming in? And this is part of a pathetic spin to try to stop Romney's victory?

The Obama campaign had told HuffPost on Thursday that it would not be releasing fundraising numbers for the day and does not discuss precise numbers except in regards to its filings with the Federal Election Commission.

There. It's not their policy. Stop calling Obama's team liars.

[Roy Karrde]

There. It's not their policy.

So if they are not going to make it their policy to release the numbers for that day, then why did the tout it out at all? It makes them look pretty pathetic for not doing so.

[Dark Sage]

It went with THIS statement:

"It's perverse that Mitt Romney won't share details about what he'd do for the millions he'd leave uninsured or at the whims of insurance companies when he 'kills Obamacare dead,' but he'll share the hourly details of his fundraising after the Supreme Court ruling," wrote Obama campaign communications director Ben LaBolt. "We've outraised the Romney campaign in that time period but that's not the point -- our supporters are more committed than ever to ensuring that insurance companies can't drop coverage for people who get sick or discriminate against people with preexisting conditions by reelecting the President."

[Roy Karrde]

It went with THIS statement:

And as we have seen from Romney's Health Care page we know that is a lie. But if they wish to go around saying that they out raised Romney during the time they need to say by how much. If not it sounds more like a political lie than anything else.

[Dark Sage]

And as we have seen from Romney's Health Care page we know that is a lie.

YOU say that the stuff on that page is a concrete plan. I say it's a a facimile of a plan that will never accomplish anything.

[Roy Karrde]

YOU say that the stuff on that page is a concrete plan. I say it's a a facsimile of a plan that will never accomplish anything.

You can believe that, but in the end it is Mitt Romney's plan to transition away from Obamacare. You can disagree with it, you cannot like it, but in the end it is a plan to fix our health care system and to lower costs. And to lower the cost of premiums is one of the biggest accomplishments a President can do in Health Care. Too bad Obama did not accomplish that.