View Poll Results: The Health Care Bill...

Voters
62. You may not vote on this poll
  • I think it is great!

    4 6.45%
  • It is not perfect, but better than the current system.

    43 69.35%
  • Sucks.

    15 24.19%
Page 48 of 48 FirstFirst ... 38 46 47 48
Results 1,176 to 1,196 of 1196

Thread: The political debate thread...

  1. #1176
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,882
    Rep Power
    499110

    Re: The political debate thread...

    [quote author=TheFavoriteDaughter link=topic=17857.msg1678111#msg1678111 date=1279855637]
    (1) I live in Arizona and this is a bunch of conservative bullshit. Has not happened.

    (2) You should read up on the politicians here and the laws that were passed shortly after 1070. This is exactly what they want.

    There's an immigration debate thread here somewhere to discuss this further.

    [/quote]


    I did a quick look for an immigration thread, but didn't see one.  This one really wasn't being used so I just posted here.  We can move if someone wants us to.

    I saw a picture of the Governor standing in front of one of the signs, so I don't think that's bs.

    I am curious about why you say there are politicians who want laws to harass Mexicans though.  The easy answer is to just say, "Screw it, let them stay here illegally."  Dealing with illegals is much harder than NOT dealing with them.  So how do politicians benefit from a law like this?

    Again, I'm very liberal socially and I think there should be a path to citizenship for illegals like they've discussed.  They should be able to become citizens and pay taxes just like me.  I'm for all of that.  I just don't see how AZ has any choice but to take matters into their own hands until the federal government can get control of the border and figure out how to make legal citizens out of those that want to come live here.
    If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. - Jello Biafra

  2. #1177
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,882
    Rep Power
    499110

    Re: The political debate thread...

    Same here. I got to this:

    I understand that there are fears that it could lead to racial profiling.  What I don't understand is how that would actually play out in real life.  Is the fear that cops will go up to random Mexicans and ask them for ID? 

    And I was too confused by how someone would be puzzled by that scenario to even continue reading.
    I am puzzled as to how that would work.  My understanding is that cops will still need a reason before inquiring about their citizenship.  I've read through it and the key part of the law states, "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…"  So if they pull someone over and they have no ID and don't speak English, it's reasonable to determine their immigration status.  That would be the most common scenario for the law to be applied.  What do you think would be a fairer way of enforcing immigration laws?  Or should they not be enforced at all, in your opinion?
    If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. - Jello Biafra

  3. #1178
    Moderator bowieluva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    65,362
    Rep Power
    21474919

    Re: The political debate thread...

    [quote author=Evolved1 link=topic=17857.msg1680543#msg1680543 date=1280184321]
    I am puzzled as to how that would work.  My understanding is that cops will still need a reason before inquiring about their citizenship.  I've read through it and the key part of the law states, "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…"  So if they pull someone over and they have no ID and don't speak English, it's reasonable to determine their immigration status.  That would be the most common scenario for the law to be applied.  What do you think would be a fairer way of enforcing immigration laws?  Or should they not be enforced at all, in your opinion?
    [/quote]
    Have you ever had any experience with a cop, ever? They find a reason and they're generally above questioning.

  4. #1179
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,882
    Rep Power
    499110

    Re: The political debate thread...

    [quote author=bowieluva link=topic=17857.msg1680681#msg1680681 date=1280192588]
    Have you ever had any experience with a cop, ever? They find a reason and they're generally above questioning.
    [/quote]

    Yes, I've been arrested.  Your concern seems to lie with cops who abuse their power.  Any cops who stop people for no justifiable reason have been doing that well before this AZ law, so let's set those cops aside for the sake of this discussion, can we?  Let's pretend a cop makes a legitimate stop and has valid reasons to believe that the driver is an undocumented alien, what issue do you take with them calling ICE (or whatever they do) and determining their immigration status?
    If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. - Jello Biafra

  5. #1180
    Moderator bowieluva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    65,362
    Rep Power
    21474919

    Re: The political debate thread...

    [quote author=Evolved1 link=topic=17857.msg1680697#msg1680697 date=1280193840]
    Yes, I've been arrested.  Your concern seems to lie with cops who abuse their power.  Any cops who stop people for no justifiable reason have been doing that well before this AZ law, so let's set those cops aside for the sake of this discussion, can we?  Let's pretend a cop makes a legitimate stop and has valid reasons to believe that the driver is an undocumented alien, what issue do you take with them calling ICE (or whatever they do) and determining their immigration status?
    [/quote]
    Well, my own opinion on immigration aside, since I think it's complete bullshit, yes, my concern lies with cops who abuse their power, which is most of them.

  6. #1181
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Atlanta metro
    Posts
    1,070
    Rep Power
    11442687

    Re: The political debate thread...

    [quote author=Evolved1 link=topic=17857.msg1680697#msg1680697 date=1280193840]
    Yes, I've been arrested.  Your concern seems to lie with cops who abuse their power.  Any cops who stop people for no justifiable reason have been doing that well before this AZ law, so let's set those cops aside for the sake of this discussion, can we?  Let's pretend a cop makes a legitimate stop and has valid reasons to believe that the driver is an undocumented alien, what issue do you take with them calling ICE (or whatever they do) and determining their immigration status?
    [/quote]

    if the suspected alien can produce documentation, it isnt the cops responsibility to do anything more but issue a traffic citation unless the guy is wanted or has outstanding warrants.  The problem is we could have Jethro or Jim wasting police resources checking with ICE about every Latino he pulls over; meanwhile, police departments throughout the country are cutting back staff, patrols, and community outreach.  It's just a poorly conceived/tough to succesfully enforce law and really should be left up to Homeland Security/Secret Service(if documents are forged to get licenses). 

  7. #1182
    Moderator bowieluva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    65,362
    Rep Power
    21474919

    Re: The political debate thread...

    Hispanic people are not the only people here illegally, and all this does is encourage racial profiling. No Aussie is going to be asked to show ID.

  8. #1183
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Atlanta metro
    Posts
    1,070
    Rep Power
    11442687

    Re: The political debate thread...

    [quote author=bowieluva link=topic=17857.msg1680717#msg1680717 date=1280195028]
    Hispanic people are not the only people here illegally, and all this does is encourage racial profiling. No Aussie is going to be asked to show ID.
    [/quote]

    Right, I would not expect many Canadians to be pulled over either, even with their beady eyes. 

    It'll be Hispanics that are targeted and that shouldnt be questioned.

  9. #1184
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,882
    Rep Power
    499110

    Re: The political debate thread...

    [quote author=bowieluva link=topic=17857.msg1680701#msg1680701 date=1280194185]
    Well, my own opinion on immigration aside, since I think it's complete bullshit, yes, my concern lies with cops who abuse their power, which is most of them.
    [/quote]

    Fair enough.  If you believe that most cops are crooked then I can understand why any new laws would be unacceptable to you.

    if the suspected alien can produce documentation, it isnt the cops responsibility to do anything more but issue a traffic citation unless the guy is wanted or has outstanding warrants.  The problem is we could have Jethro or Jim wasting police resources checking with ICE about every Latino he pulls over; meanwhile, police departments throughout the country are cutting back staff, patrols, and community outreach.  It's just a poorly conceived/tough to succesfully enforce law and really should be left up to Homeland Security/Secret Service(if documents are forged to get licenses).
    If some produce documentation, then that means they won't have to waste time calling ICE on every Latino, just the undocumented ones.  I don't think that AZ cops should be the only ones enforcing it, but can we honestly say that ICE and Homeland Security don't need some help?  And from what I've read, most Arizonans support the law, so that tells me there is something to it.
    If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. - Jello Biafra

  10. #1185
    Senior Member TheFavoriteDaughter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    12,218
    Rep Power
    21474865

    Re: The political debate thread...

    [quote author=Evolved1 link=topic=17857.msg1680726#msg1680726 date=1280195839]
    Fair enough.  If you believe that most cops are crooked then I can understand why any new laws would be unacceptable to you.

    If some produce documentation, then that means they won't have to waste time calling ICE on every Latino, just the undocumented ones.  I don't think that AZ cops should be the only ones enforcing it, but can we honestly say that ICE and Homeland Security don't need some help?  And from what I've read, most Arizonans support the law, so that tells me there is something to it.
    [/quote]

    http://www.azfamily.com/video/featur...-91769419.html


    [quote author=Evolved1 link=topic=17857.msg1680543#msg1680543 date=1280184321]
    I am puzzled as to how that would work.  My understanding is that cops will still need a reason before inquiring about their citizenship.  I've read through it and the key part of the law states, "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…"  So if they pull someone over and they have no ID and don't speak English, it's reasonable to determine their immigration status.  That would be the most common scenario for the law to be applied.  What do you think would be a fairer way of enforcing immigration laws?  Or should they not be enforced at all, in your opinion?
    [/quote]

    This is racial profiling. I live in AZ and there are veeery many U.S. citizens with super thick Spanish accents. Even some who were born and raised here like the guy in the above link.
    Suzanne Knight (21) brutally raped and devoured 3 toddlers while on a meth binge before hanging herself Marky69: If those toddlers didnt want to be eaten then they shouldnt of looked so god damned delicious. RIP Suzanne

  11. #1186
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,882
    Rep Power
    499110

    Re: The political debate thread...

    [quote author=TheFavoriteDaughter link=topic=17857.msg1680773#msg1680773 date=1280199241]
    http://www.azfamily.com/video/featur...-91769419.html


    This is racial profiling. I live in AZ and there are veeery many U.S. citizens with super thick Spanish accents. Even some who were born and raised here like the guy in the above link.
    [/quote]


    The link you posted wasn't clear on all the details about that particular case, but as with any law, mistakes can happen.  I don't think that will be the norm.  I live in southern California where super thick Spanish accents are common too.  I don't think using that as one possible criteria among others to have suspicions about their immigration status is racial profiling.  I think it's just common sense really.  Arizona is very close to Mexico, not Australia or Canada.  Mexico is a country that their citizens are looking to leave.  It's not a stretch to say that 99% of the illegal aliens there are from somewhere south of the border.  I'm not saying arrest them or deport them all, I'm saying the opposite actually.  I think they should be given a chance to become legal citizens, just like Obama has proposed.  They should have citizenship classes that they can take for free to learn English, how voting and taxes work and all that.  I would like to see the same law happen here.  It would be great for our economy and would benefit us all I think, even the Latino community.  They wouldn't have to feel that burden of always being wary of getting caught, and they could safely go to the police when they are a crime victim.  I think it would be a win-win for everyone except those who are up to no good.
    If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve. - Jello Biafra

  12. #1187
    senior cunt emmieslost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    DSM
    Posts
    26,144
    Rep Power
    21474880

    Re: The political debate thread...

    http://mydeathspace.com/smf/index.php?topic=25360.0


  13. #1188
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,725
    Rep Power
    5570947

    Re: The political debate thread...

    Don't know if it's been posted anywhere but

    Judge strikes down California's ban on same-sex marriage
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/cal...1&iref=BN1


  14. #1189
    Moderator bowieluva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    65,362
    Rep Power
    21474919

    Re: The political debate thread...

    [quote author=holly link=topic=17857.msg1688462#msg1688462 date=1280960759]
    Don't know if it's been posted anywhere but

    Judge strikes down California's ban on same-sex marriage
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/cal...1&iref=BN1


    [/quote]
    Everyone I know is so happy. FUUUU Mormons! FFFUUUUU!

  15. #1190
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    7,243
    Rep Power
    36

    Re: The political debate thread...

    [quote author=holly link=topic=17857.msg1688462#msg1688462 date=1280960759]
    Don't know if it's been posted anywhere but

    Judge strikes down California's ban on same-sex marriage
    http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/cal...1&iref=BN1


    [/quote]
    It is about damned time ::does happy dance::

  16. #1191
    Certified Grumple Bottoms Ron_NYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Queens!
    Posts
    102,846
    Rep Power
    21474956

    Re: The political debate thread...

    :lol:

    There is a news report starting to make the rounds amongst the MSM on a study that claims to have discovered why conservatives tend to be happier than liberals and it is just the sort of bilge that the MSM loves to promulgate. We may see more of it over the next several days because, while it is titled "Conservatives Happier Than Liberals,"  it is basically saying that the reason conservatives are happier is because they just don't care about other people. This purported research claims to pinpoint the reason conservatives are happier and it is because they have theirs and they don't care if everyone else is poor and downtrodden. In contrast they claim liberals are less happy because they care more about people and are all heartbroken that people suffer "inequalities."

    Yes, they are telling us that if you're a happy conservative, it's because you are a hateful, meanie. Thank you New York University.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/05/07/new-study-conservatives-are-happier-because-they-hate-everyone#ixzz0wcXVSqpu
    Quote Originally Posted by bowieluva View Post
    Ron was the best part, hands down.

  17. #1192
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    15,343
    Rep Power
    505279

    Re: The political debate thread...

    That would explain why I'm so middle of the road.  I hate everyone and I'm unhappy.

  18. #1193
    Certified Grumple Bottoms Ron_NYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Queens!
    Posts
    102,846
    Rep Power
    21474956

    Re: The political debate thread...

    [quote author=HyperU2 link=topic=17857.msg1695299#msg1695299 date=1281830270]
    That would explain why I'm so middle of the road.  I hate everyone and I'm unhappy.
    [/quote]
    :lol:
    Quote Originally Posted by bowieluva View Post
    Ron was the best part, hands down.

  19. #1194
    Moderator puzzld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    21,600
    Rep Power
    21474874
    Time to resurrect this thread?

    The Bomb Buried In Obamacare Explodes Today-Hallelujah!

    I have long argued that the impact of the Affordable Care Act is not nearly as big of a deal as opponents would have you believe. At the end of the day, the law is – in the main – little more than a successful effort to put an end to some of the more egregious health insurer abuses while creating an environment that should bring more Americans into programs that will give them at least some of the health care coverage they need.

    There is, however, one notable exception – and it’s one that should have a long lasting and powerful impact on the future of health care in our country.


    That would be the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care.


    This is the true ‘bomb’ contained in Obamacare and the one item that will have more impact on the future of how medical care is paid for in this country than anything we’ve seen in quite some time. Indeed, it is this aspect of the law that represents the true ‘death panel’ found in Obamacare—but not one that is going to lead to the death of American consumers. Rather, the medical loss ration will, ultimately, lead to the death of large parts of the private, for-profit health insurance industry.


    Why? Because there is absolutely no way for-profit health insurers are going to be able to learn how to get by and still make a profit while being forced to spend at least 80 percent of their receipts providing their customers with the coverage for which they paid. If they could, we likely would never have seen the extraordinary efforts made by these companies to avoid paying benefits to their customers at the very moment they need it the most.

    Today, that bomb goes off.


    Today, the Department of Health & Human Services issues the rules of what insurer expenditures will—and will not—qualify as a medical expense for purposes of meeting the requirement.


    As it turns out, HHS isn’t screwing around. They actually mean to see to it that the insurance companies spend what they should taking care of their customers.


    Here’s an example: For months, health insurance brokers and salespeople have been lobbying to have the commissions they earn for selling an insurer’s program to consumers be included as a ‘medical expense’ for purposes of the rules. HHS has, today, given them the official thumbs down, as well they should have. Selling me a health insurance policy is simply not the same as providing me with the medical care I am entitled to under the policy. Sales is clearly an overhead cost in any business and had HHS included this as a medical cost, it would have signaled that they are not at all serious about enforcing the concept of the medical loss ratio.


    So, can private health insurance companies manage to make a profit when they actually have to spend premium receipts taking care of their customers’ health needs as promised?


    Not a chance-and they know it. Indeed, we are already seeing the parent companies who own these insurance operations fleeing into other types of investments. They know what we should all know – we are now on an inescapable path to a single-payer system for most Americans and thank goodness for it.

    Whether you are a believer in the benefits of single-payer health coverage or an opponent, mark this day down on your calendar because this is the day seismic shifts in our health care system finally get under way.


    If you thought that the Obama Administration chickened out on pushing the nation in the direction of universal health care for everyone, today is the day you begin to understand that the reality is quite the contrary.

    If you believe that the end of private, for-profit health insurance is some type of nefarious step towards a socialist society, then you might want to attend church this Sunday to mourn the loss of health insurers being able to worm out of covering the bills of a cancer patient because she forgot to write down on her application that she had skin acne for three months when she was a teenager.


    Of course, those of you who fear the inevitable arrival of universal health care really shouldn’t be too fretful. There will always be a for-profit health insurance industry for those who want to pay for it. The only difference will be that those who cannot afford private coverage will also have an opportunity to get their families the medical care that they need


    Everyone wins-except the for-profit health insurers.

    I can live with that.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...day-halleluja/


    Quote Originally Posted by bowieluva View Post
    lol at Nestle being some vicious smiter, she's the nicest person on this site besides probably puzzld. Or at least the last person to resort to smiting.
    Quote Originally Posted by nestlequikie View Post
    Why on earth would I smite you when I can ban you?

  20. #1195
    Moderator puzzld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    21,600
    Rep Power
    21474874
    In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court decided to uphold his signature health care law's individual insurance mandate in a 5-4 decision, upending speculation after hostile-seeming oral arguments in March that the justices would overturn the law. The mandate has been upheld as a tax, with Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee, joining the liberal wing of the court. Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog says Roberts' vote "saved" the Affordable Care Act.

    The court's four liberal justices agreed that the individual mandate should be upheld as part of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, but Roberts disagreed, and wrote that the mandate is actually a tax, despite the Obama administration's reluctance to describe it that way during the bill's passage. In its argument to the court, the government left open the possibility that the mandate is a tax, but did not rely much on that argument. Under the law, people who do not have health insurance will have to pay 1 percent of their income to the IRS starting in 2014. (There are exceptions for some religious beliefs and financial hardship.)

    "If an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes," Roberts writes. He adds that this means "the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning an income."

    A footnote flagged by SCOTUSblog's Amy Howe explains the reasoning further. "Those subject to the individual mandate may lawfully forgo health insurance and pay higher taxes, or buy health insurance and pay lower taxes. The only thing that they may not lawfully do is not buy health insurance and not pay the resulting tax."

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, usually the court's swing vote, dissented, reading from the bench that he and three conservative justices believe "the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety." In a 65-page dissent, he and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dismissed Roberts' arguments, writing that there is a "mountain of evidence" that the mandate is not a tax. "To say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it," they write.

    Twenty six states sued over the law, arguing that the individual mandate, which requires people to buy health insurance or face a fine starting in 2014, was unconstitutional. Opponents cast the individual mandate as the government forcing Americans to enter a market and buy a product against their will, while the government countered that the law was actually only regulating a market that everyone is already in, since almost everyone will seek health care at some point in his or her life.

    Before oral arguments in March, polls of Supreme Court experts and scholars showed that most believed the mandate would be upheld as an exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. But after justices seemed deeply skeptical of the mandate in oral arguments in March, the consensus flipped, with most experts guessing the court would strike down the law.

    House Republicans have vowed to repeal the entire law, though it's unlikely the Democratic-controlled Senate would let that happen, and this decision will most likely slow momentum for that move. "Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.

    Though the sweeping, 1,000-page plus law passed more than two years ago, much of it will not go into effect until 2014. That's when states will have to set up their own health insurance exchanges, Medicaid will be expanded by 16 million low-income people, and Americans will have to buy health insurance (for many, with a government subsidy) or pay a penalty of 1 percent of their income to the IRS. Employers who have more than 50 employees and don't offer insurance will also begin to face a penalty. Insurers will no longer be able to turn away people with preexisting conditions, or charge people higher premiums based on their gender or health.

    Only about 6 percent of the population will actually be required to buy health insurance or face a tax under the mandate, since most people already have coverage or will get it through Medicare, according to the Urban Institute.

    Many of the more popular provisions of the law have already gone into effect, including a regulation saying insurers have to let children stay on their parents' plans until they are 26 years old, which 2.5 million Americans have already taken advantage of. Insurers can also no longer turn away children with preexisting conditions, and sick uninsured people can buy coverage in high-risk pools set up by the government.

    Despite this intentional front-loading of consumer friendly, popular provisions of the law, the American public is pretty evenly split on the law's benefit. Slightly more people wanted the Supreme Court to strike down the law than uphold it in a recent poll.

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/s...135554880.html
    Quote Originally Posted by bowieluva View Post
    lol at Nestle being some vicious smiter, she's the nicest person on this site besides probably puzzld. Or at least the last person to resort to smiting.
    Quote Originally Posted by nestlequikie View Post
    Why on earth would I smite you when I can ban you?

  21. #1196
    Moderator bowieluva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    65,362
    Rep Power
    21474919
    Aw yeah I just reread this whole thread and I AM AWESOME.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •