Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > USA
Reload this Page >

Supreme Court starting to hear health care case

Supreme Court starting to hear health care case

Thread Tools
 
Old Mar 30th 2012, 2:40 am
  #106  
BE Enthusiast
 
Joined: Jan 2011
Location: West Sussex - did 3 years in the US...
Posts: 577
dlake02 has a reputation beyond reputedlake02 has a reputation beyond reputedlake02 has a reputation beyond reputedlake02 has a reputation beyond reputedlake02 has a reputation beyond reputedlake02 has a reputation beyond reputedlake02 has a reputation beyond reputedlake02 has a reputation beyond reputedlake02 has a reputation beyond reputedlake02 has a reputation beyond reputedlake02 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case

Many Republicans would love the government to cease being responsible for education.
Well, when we joined Cub Scouts, there were quite a few very staunch Republicans that "home-schooled" their kids. To a boy, those kids are socially challenged and down-right weird. I was told that real Republicans home-school their kids....

As Maggie Thatcher once famously said "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families." That's it according to the hard Right.
... yep; that and the Thatcher/Reagan "trickle-down" theories... Anyway, one has now left us, and I'll be traveling back to the UK First Class to join the celebrations when the other one goes....
dlake02 is offline  
Old Mar 30th 2012, 2:54 am
  #107  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,865
Giantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case

Originally Posted by dlake02
Well, when we joined Cub Scouts, there were quite a few very staunch Republicans that "home-schooled" their kids. To a boy, those kids are socially challenged and down-right weird. I was told that real Republicans home-school their kids....
They're not being "indoctrinated" by all those lefty teachers though are they?
Giantaxe is offline  
Old Mar 30th 2012, 4:14 am
  #108  
Bob
BE Site Lead
 
Bob's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 92,170
Bob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case

Originally Posted by Giantaxe
The only two Republican senators who negotiated in good faith on healthcare were the two from Maine. The rest... not so much.
Largely why Snowe has given up, too much infighting for party politics and not for the good of the country was her reason, which is a shame as she was rather good.
Bob is offline  
Old Mar 30th 2012, 4:26 am
  #109  
Bob
BE Site Lead
 
Bob's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 92,170
Bob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case

Originally Posted by ian-mstm
According to SCOTUS, a person doesn't come into existence until birth... so health care pre-birth is irrelevant when discussing rights. A non-person has no rights... and I don't have a problem with that position.
It's funny then, how those pre-birth, non-persons with no rights politically get so many rights with the pro life political brigade around here.

I just find that an amusing observation, especially where one can be so pro guns, death penalty, war and yet claim pro-life. Seems a very weird bit of irony.

That last bit isn't really aimed at you, but it is something that does amuse me about this country.
Bob is offline  
Old Mar 30th 2012, 4:30 am
  #110  
BE Forum Addict
 
frrussre's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Ft Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 4,792
frrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case

Why is it acceptable for the Federal Government, by way of coercion, to force States to ban alcohol for under 21 yrs old. I Guess, they think its detrimental to young peoples Health "Care".

Yet another law forced upon, us by the FEDS. The Republicans are generally gung ho, for that law.


Frank R.
frrussre is offline  
Old Mar 30th 2012, 5:02 am
  #111  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,865
Giantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond reputeGiantaxe has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case

Originally Posted by frrussre
Why is it acceptable for the Federal Government, by way of coercion, to force States to ban alcohol for under 21 yrs old. I Guess, they think its detrimental to young peoples Health "Care".

Yet another law forced upon, us by the FEDS. The Republicans are generally gung ho, for that law.
They refused to supply highway funds to states that didn't raise the age to 21. Coercion? Probably. And certainly based on the premise that it would reduce teenage driving fatalities.
Giantaxe is offline  
Old Mar 30th 2012, 5:09 am
  #112  
BE Forum Addict
 
frrussre's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Location: Ft Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 4,792
frrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond reputefrrussre has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case

Originally Posted by Giantaxe
They refused to supply highway funds to states that didn't raise the age to 21. Coercion? Probably. And certainly based on the premise that it would reduce teenage driving fatalities.
Hi Giantaxe, I know how they did it and yes they used coercion. Republicans have no problem with that law being forced upon them by the FEDS.

But Health care, being coerced or forced to buy health insurance, "We are free people, you can't force things on us".
I think Health Insurance for all, would save wayyyyyy more lives, then a fairly worthless Under 21 drinking law.
Frank R.

Last edited by frrussre; Mar 30th 2012 at 5:11 am.
frrussre is offline  
Old Mar 30th 2012, 3:51 pm
  #113  
BE Enthusiast
 
HumphreyC's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Gaadnah MA
Posts: 597
HumphreyC has a reputation beyond reputeHumphreyC has a reputation beyond reputeHumphreyC has a reputation beyond reputeHumphreyC has a reputation beyond reputeHumphreyC has a reputation beyond reputeHumphreyC has a reputation beyond reputeHumphreyC has a reputation beyond reputeHumphreyC has a reputation beyond reputeHumphreyC has a reputation beyond reputeHumphreyC has a reputation beyond reputeHumphreyC has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case

Originally Posted by Giantaxe
They refused to supply highway funds to states that didn't raise the age to 21. Coercion? Probably. And certainly based on the premise that it would reduce teenage driving fatalities.
Yes - this is one of my bugbears. You always get the argument that raising the age to 21 was what caused drink driving deaths to drop. However I checked the stats for Canada and they dropped at the same rate over the same period (I think they might actually be lower) with the drinking age staying at 18/19.

On the mandate, Social Security and Medicare already mandate that we purchase retirement security and health insurance. If you look at the Republicans 'Ryan Plan' for Medicare it looks suspiciously similar to Obamacare (oh and it has a mandate).

Last edited by HumphreyC; Mar 30th 2012 at 3:54 pm.
HumphreyC is offline  
Old Mar 30th 2012, 6:52 pm
  #114  
Bob
BE Site Lead
 
Bob's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: MA, USA
Posts: 92,170
Bob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond reputeBob has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case

Originally Posted by Giantaxe
They refused to supply highway funds to states that didn't raise the age to 21. Coercion? Probably. And certainly based on the premise that it would reduce teenage driving fatalities.
It's amusing that that is the only one NH has taken on as they lost highway funding by not requiring drivers to wear a seatbelt etc.

I wonder if the roads would be dirt roads by now if they had allowed a lower drinking age
Bob is offline  
Old Mar 31st 2012, 11:29 pm
  #115  
BE Enthusiast
 
SATX John's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 899
SATX John is just really niceSATX John is just really niceSATX John is just really niceSATX John is just really niceSATX John is just really niceSATX John is just really niceSATX John is just really niceSATX John is just really niceSATX John is just really niceSATX John is just really nice
Default Re: Supreme Court starting to hear health care case

Originally Posted by Bob
It's amusing that that is the only one NH has taken on as they lost highway funding by not requiring drivers to wear a seatbelt etc.

I wonder if the roads would be dirt roads by now if they had allowed a lower drinking age
LA did that over drinking age and as everyone that has driven them knows their Interstate Highways roads are crap. Yet the State roads are rather good. Hmmm...
SATX John is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.