General Politics Thread

[weskurtz81]

I think I played this card last month...

come on wes keep up man. just cuz you're a married(?) man now, don't pretend like you have better things to do than pay attention to every one of my posts

Ahhh, guess you beat me to it... boooo.

Looking at your post though, you were taking a different angle weren't you? Naturally, you were angling it towards a conservative spin, my thought is why aren't the Democrats raising hell about it like they were back then?

Not married yet, Oct 13th is the big day! However, I have been SUPER busy. The Houston Live Stock Show and Rodeo just finished up, I volunteer on a committee and was out there every single day for 3 weeks... from about 3:30 until 9:45-10 on some nights but at least 8 every night (30 minute drive from the house). It was loads of fun though, 25K volunteers help put on one hell of show that has provided close to $500 Million in scholarships and educational support to kids from all walks of life, great cause.

[The Black Wolf]

You have to buy car insurance to drive on the road, right? What's wrong with making it mandatory for people to buy health insurance? You don't see car insurance people complaining.

[Beast of Bourbon]

The problem is people aren't cars (duh)
How do you determine how much a person has to pay for his/her health insurance?
Health checks? Do you take into account that some people smoke/go skiing or have other hobbies that make them more likely to cause costs in the future?

Long story short, we have social health insurance here in germany, which means the young people (who usualy don't cause huge costs) pay for the old people that need to go to the doctor more often, take alot of pills etc....
The problem with that concept is that our society gets older and older (common problem of the western world).

With declining numbers of young people that can pay the rising costs of healthcare it's only a matter of time till the whole system collapses...

I'd prefer an individual solution to a social solution because in my experience i'm always the one losing in those scenarios (not poor enough to profit from social programms and not rich enough to simply not give a fuck).

[F34R]

You have to buy car insurance to drive on the road, right? What's wrong with making it mandatory for people to buy health insurance? You don't see car insurance people complaining.

You have car insurance to secure the worth of the property that is on loan, or for liabilities you may incur if you are at fault in a collision. Tell me how either of those two fit into a health car scenario.

[weskurtz81]

And, in relation to the constitution, no one said you have to drive, but you had no say in being born. So, the difference is the federal government would make you pay something simply because you exist where as with car insurance you simply don't have to drive if you don't want to pay for insurance. Also, liability insurance is a state mandate not a federal one.

[F34R]

And, in relation to the constitution, no one said you have to drive, but you had no say in being born. So, the difference is the federal government would make you pay something simply because you exist where as with car insurance you simply don't have to drive if you don't want to pay for insurance. Also, liability insurance is a state mandate not a federal one.

Exactly.

[DayWalker]

You have car insurance to secure the worth of the property that is on loan, or for liabilities you may incur if you are at fault in a collision. Tell me how either of those two fit into a health car scenario.

...if you have an accident... get taken to a hospital... they have to treat you... regardless if you can afford it or not...

[F34R]

...if you have an accident... get taken to a hospital... they have to treat you... regardless if you can afford it or not...

Which is no different than how it is now. Whats your point? You car insurance policy pays medical when involved in an accident.

[The Black Wolf]

Okay, I understand it better now. Thanks.

[DayWalker]

Did I specify car accident?

[btbam]

about this whole supreme courth decision. I'll make a prediction right now. The Court will decide that the issue is not ripe enough becuase the individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014. That means nobody has been damaged by it yet and therefore there is no case yet. scalia will probably offer a dissent saying its unconstitutional. I have an idea what he'll say but not sure. Roberts might write the dissent as well.

[Blacksite]

It looks like George H.W. Bush will endorse Mitt Romney, the leading GOP candidate. Not really surprising, I guess, but news nonetheless.

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Former President George H.W. Bush plans to endorse Mitt Romney at an event Thursday in Houston.

Romney spokeswoman Gail Gitcho says the two will appear together and speak to reporters.


Formal backing from the 41st president is another sign that the Republican Party is uniting behind Romney as pressure builds on challengers Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich to leave the race.


The elder Bush has offered encouraging words to Romney throughout the primary season but had withheld a formal endorsement. Former first lady Barbara Bush has formally backed Romney. She recorded automated telephone calls for him during the primary in Ohio.


Their son, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, endorsed Romney last week.

Source

[MATRIX 2]

about this whole supreme courth decision. I'll make a prediction right now. The Court will decide that the issue is not ripe enough becuase the individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014. That means nobody has been damaged by it yet and therefore there is no case yet. scalia will probably offer a dissent saying its unconstitutional. I have an idea what he'll say but not sure. Roberts might write the dissent as well.

You do realize the court decided to address this issue asap instead of waiting for all of it to take effect, right?

[btbam]

You do realize the court decided to address this issue asap instead of waiting for all of it to take effect, right?

They did so because president Obama requested they take the case right away. Obviously its their choice, but do you think they would refuse a request from the president? Fact is the penalty for the mandate doesnt go into effect until 2014. Nobody has been damaged by it yet so the only thing they can decide is its not ripe enough

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

[MATRIX 2]

They did so because president Obama requested they take the case right away. Obviously its their choice, but do you think they would refuse a request from the president? Fact is the penalty for the mandate doesnt go into effect until 2014. Nobody has been damaged by it yet so the only thing they can decide is its not ripe enough

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

If they wanted to, yes.

And I'm sure they did it for more than just the president asking. We don't have the luxury of being able to wait till 2014 to begin discussing the constitutionality of it.

[weskurtz81]

Odd, gas prices are back up around the same price range they were back when the Democrats started raising all this hell and threatening to take over oil companies. I remember, I think Nancy Pelosi, blaming the high gas prices on the lack of a Bush energy policy, are these high prices because Obama lacks an energy policy? So funny how things are different roughly 4 years later because a different man is in the White House.

Now, for Obama, that was a nice shot he fired off at the "unelected" supreme court warning them not to over turn the health care law he passed. Really, "unelected"? No shit SHERLOCK! They never have been! And just because it was passed by the majority of Congress doesn't make it constitutional, just like plenty of other things in the past that were passed by the all mighty federal government.

[DayWalker]

Odd, gas prices are back up around the same price range they were back when the Democrats started raising all this hell and threatening to take over oil companies. I remember, I think Nancy Pelosi, blaming the high gas prices on the lack of a Bush energy policy, are these high prices because Obama lacks an energy policy? So funny how things are different roughly 4 years later because a different man is in the White House.

Now, for Obama, that was a nice shot he fired off at the "unelected" supreme court warning them not to over turn the health care law he passed. Really, "unelected"? No shit SHERLOCK! They never have been! And just because it was passed by the majority of Congress doesn't make it constitutional, just like plenty of other things in the past that were passed by the all mighty federal government.

... you were expecting him/them to sit quietly while all this is being debated? are u new to politics wes?


right now both sides are using this as a fundraising football... per usual



============
edit

Jon Stewart is mocking both sides for doing this sort of thing routinely as we speak

good timing.

[weskurtz81]

... you were expecting him/them to sit quietly while all this is being debated? are u new to politics wes?

Stand by silently, no, but not attack them the way he did, that's not very Presidential IMO. "Unelected" body? How does that even matter? It seemed to me that he showed a serious lack of disrespect for the Supreme Court, and IMO I don't think it was wise.

right now both sides are using this as a fundraising football... per usual

The pending court decision? Like I said, he's just another politician... just a bit better at playing the game than most and most people are too dumb to see it.

Jon Stewart is mocking both sides for doing this sort of thing routinely as we speak

good timing.

I like Stewart, his left leaning ideology does tend to show, but he does take shots at both sides (IE- Democrats) from time to time. He'd probably be a ton of fun to hang out with.

[The Black Wolf]

Some blonde haired woman called it, Romney is going to be the nominee. The same woman also said, " . . . and we are going to lose" in the same sentence regarding the 2012 election.

She got one prediction right, let's see how well the 2nd one goes.

[plustheharm]

Some blonde haired woman called it, Romney is going to be the nominee. The same woman also said, " . . . and we are going to lose" in the same sentence regarding the 2012 election.

She got one prediction right, let's see how well the 2nd one goes.

Willard doesn't stand a chance.

[weskurtz81]

Some blonde haired woman called it, Romney is going to be the nominee. The same woman also said, " . . . and we are going to lose" in the same sentence regarding the 2012 election.

She got one prediction right, let's see how well the 2nd one goes.

There's a lot that can happen between now and November. The economy still isn't really recovering, they are backing off of QE because it's not working, Obamacare ruling, and more.

There's a good chance conditions worsen to the point where it doesn't matter who the candidate is.

[btbam]

There's a lot that can happen between now and November. The economy still isn't really recovering, they are backing off of QE because it's not working, Obamacare ruling, and more.

There's a good chance conditions worsen to the point where it doesn't matter who the candidate is.

The supreme court decision won't be made until june either. not the best timing for either, but still close enough to sway the election a bit IMO. Obama will be able to point as a significant achievement to rally his base if its kept. Mittens will be able to point as a huge failure if its dropped. The biggest part is the bill has no severability clause meaning if the mandate is struck down the whole bill goes out the window. Dismantling the mechanisms of the legislation and separating it from the current system would be an administrative nightmare that would probably taint the obama administration beyond repair. We also have have teh economy as you suggest. Its gonna be a big issue in this. Obama has to sell that he has made significant improvments in the economy and that he can continue to grow it. All Mittens has to do is say he can grow it better, but he'll also make the case that the economy is in bad shape. It'll be an interesting political season no doubt. But alas, we put to much intrest in the President i think. the real problem with America isn't one guy in the executive branch, its the 435 congressmen and women and the 100 senators we have. I'd throw out 2/3rds of both house and start from scratch to be honest.

[btbam]

Romney is the defacto candidate despite the delusion of Santorum. This article offers a very interesting take on what romney should be doing. Good read.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...ys-challenges/

[DayWalker]

I think its folly to think the supreme court striking down the healthcare law will weaken Obama's base... I would think it would galvanize them

[MATRIX 2]

I think its folly to think the supreme court striking down the healthcare law will weaken Obama's base... I would think it would galvanize them