Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare in Landmark Decision
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Do you agree with the Decision?
No way-it's socialized medicine.
7%
 7%  [ 1 ]
Definitely - and it's long overdue.
42%
 42%  [ 6 ]
No - it's a violation of my rights.
7%
 7%  [ 1 ]
Yes - Health care in the US needs this
28%
 28%  [ 4 ]
None of the above - my answer is in my post.
14%
 14%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 14

Author Message
geaaronson



Joined: 19 Apr 2005
Posts: 948
Location: Mexico City

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnslat

I am straddling on the middle on this issue. It`s an interesting moral one and I have to decide whether it`s of sufficient import to necessitate recusing oneself.
If she were invested heavily in stocks that are adversely affected by Obamacare then I would say definitely there is a conflict of interest. But considering she is a lobbyist who has chosen to represent interests out of some albeit "twisted notion of public good", she is doing so because of her political and economic beliefs......hmmmm....interesting question.

I wish that Thomas would just go away....like take a trip to a glacier on the Arctic Ocean and forget to come back....but the question of recusing oneself is a serious one. Judges are citizens as well and should have the right as citizens to be part of participatory democracy. They should not renege on their public responsibility, ie. petition for law changes, or even forfeit to petition addresses to injustices, even publicly demonstrate, but it has been the consensus that judges need to be neutral in their adjudication(sp?) and circumspect in giving out personal opinions as to prejudice their court decisions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geaaronson



Joined: 19 Apr 2005
Posts: 948
Location: Mexico City

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 1:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Although I welcome Obamacare, there are some problems in the bill for me. First, I am annoyed that its implementation is on a very delayed schedule.

Secondly, it does bother me somewhat from a libertarian point of view the mandatory aspect of the insurance mandate. I don`t deny the right of the government to mandate coverage, but still it somehow sticks in my craw. I suspect that the powers(obama, pelosi et al.) to be added it as a sop to the insurance industry to accept the other points in the bill.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cool Teacher



Joined: 18 May 2009
Posts: 887
Location: Here, There and Everywhere! :D

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not American so I won't vote and disturb the poll but my opionon is that it must be very worrying to have no healthcase and be bankrupted bty an illness but have no way to get insurance because of the pre-existing conditions so I think it would be nice to have something like the NHS unfortunately I think the British government is trying to destroy the NHS which woudl be terribel so it is good that Americans can now get healthcase but I don't knwo why it needs to be an insurance thing. Confused It might be that many people who never wanted to but insurance are now forced to which is good business for the insurance companies. Shocked

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Guy Courchesne



Joined: 10 Mar 2003
Posts: 9393
Location: Mexico City

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

geaaronson wrote:
Although I welcome Obamacare, there are some problems in the bill for me. First, I am annoyed that its implementation is on a very delayed schedule.

Secondly, it does bother me somewhat from a libertarian point of view the mandatory aspect of the insurance mandate. I don`t deny the right of the government to mandate coverage, but still it somehow sticks in my craw. I suspect that the powers(obama, pelosi et al.) to be added it as a sop to the insurance industry to accept the other points in the bill.


It's all semantics...a penalty, a tax, a penalty. Had they gotten the public option through, it would have been a tax, plain and simple and you wouldn't have to worry about the constitutionality of the thing. It seems more like a 3000 page bill that could have been more easily done on a notepad and ya.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
johnslat



Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 12292
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Politics is the art of the possible" Otto von Bismarck (a guy who knew his way around the halls of power pretty well"

The health insurance reform that survived the Supreme Court (the Affordable Health Care for America Act - i.e. "Obamacare') is by no means perfect, but, under the circumstances (i.e. Republican opposition) it's the best that could be accomplished.
A "single payer" plan (as Canada's is) or a "public option" (a federal health plan that would compete with insurance companies) would be better, of course, but the hypocrites in Congress would never have allowed us to have as good a health care plan as they do:

"The Supreme Court and the GOP's Healthcare Hypocrisy
March 29, 2012

Thereís always hypocrisy in Washington but past and present Republican presidential candidates have used the debate on healthcare to take it to heights unimaginable even in the nationís capital. This week the Supreme Court heard arguments on the Affordable Care Act and the GOP tried again to cripple Medicare, the federal health insurance program for seniors.

What do Rep. Michele Bachmann, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Sen. Rick Santorum, and Rep. Ron Paul have in common? They were or are candidates for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination. They all oppose the Affordable Care Act, and theyíre all hypocrites. Michele Bachmann feels so strongly about the law that she has been present in the Supreme Court during the oral arguments this week. Rick Santorum is so hostile to the Affordable Care Act that he took time away from the campaign trail to appear on the steps of the Supreme Court building on the first day of arguments. But Bachmann still enjoys the benefits of the gold plated federal healthcare insurance for members of Congress. Rick Santorum enjoyed the same government health benefits when he was a senator.

All of them say they oppose the Affordable Care Act because they claim it is ďgovernment run healthcare.Ē But donít panic, because theyíre wrong. Since President Obama decided not to fight for a single payer plan or even for the public option, healthcare is still in the deadly clutches of the insurance companies.

Even if the Republicans candidates were right, they have some nerve even making the argument. While they all criticize government run healthcare and Medicare, as members of Congress they took full advantage of the gold plated healthcare insurance provided by the United States government. What the Republicans are really saying is that government run healthcare is fine for them but too good for working families. Since Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul are still members of Congress, they could easily refuse their government run healthcare insurance and go into the private market like everybody else. But donít hold your breath waiting for them to opt out. Bachmann and Paul are still on the government dole, and so are all the others members of Congress who opposed the Affordable Care Act. Hypocrites all.

Then thereís former governor and former liberal Mitt Romney who also has been very critical of the mandate in the new federal health insurance law. But the healthcare reform bill that he signed into law in Massachusetts has the same government mandate for everyone to have health insurance that is in the Affordable Care Act. After the reform bill became law in the Bay State, Romney said it was a model for the rest of the nation. Well he was right. Romneycare became Obamacare.

Itís not really surprising that Romney supported the insurance mandate in Massachusetts. The mandate was originally a Republican idea. Even Newt Gingrich supported the mandate in the 1990s. Republicans felt that people who didnít buy health insurance were freeloaders. When people who donít have health insurance are hurt or get sick, they go to emergency rooms and hospitals bill the taxpayers for the cost of treatment. The idea is that uninsured people should take financial responsibility for their own actions. That sounds pretty conservative to me, but itís still a good idea.

So why do politicians like Romney and Gingrich oppose the mandate after they supported it. They thought it was a great idea when conservative think tanks developed it, but once a Democratic president used their idea in his bill, it became radioactive.

Rick Santorum is right about one thing. Mitt Romney will have a lot of trouble trying to explain why his mandate was such a good idea and why the presidentís mandate is such a bad idea."

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/brad-bannon/2012/03/29/the-supreme-court-and-the-gops-healthcare-hypocrisy

Regards,
John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geaaronson



Joined: 19 Apr 2005
Posts: 948
Location: Mexico City

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guy
I agree with you wholeheartedly on your last post. Unfortunately, the votes were not there in the Senate for the single payer plan. According to the news sources at the time,only 31 Senators were on board for that option and at most another 15 by the count of its most ardent backers could be persuaded under the harshest arm twisting to go along, falling 4 votes short of passage. And that was the rosiest, most glowing forecast.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnslat



Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 12292
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The votes were not there because of Republican obstructionism:

"This kind of deadlock by minority rule has worked out wonderfully for the GOP. With their stated goal, Ēfor President Obama to be a one-term PresidentĒ according to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, gridlock is easy and effective.
But of course the legislation didnít pass because, after all, we are talking about the U.S. Senate, where 60 votes are required to invoke cloture, end a filibuster and pass most bills. With partisanship and obstructionism the GOPís preferred strategy, filibuster threats have soared to record levels and explain in large part why so many popular Democratic Party proposals have been left in the dust.
So once again, millionaires will continue paying lower effective tax rates, single-payer or public option in health care will be out of reach, and federal judges will fail to be confirmed. Is it possible Democrats will get tough and move to reform the rules to prevent such blatant obstruction by Republicans? Itís about as likely as the GOP admitting they were wrong about global warming and abortion rights."

http://thebigpicturereport.com/2012/04/18/senate-stuck-in-quicksand-of-record-filibusters/

Regards,
John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geaaronson



Joined: 19 Apr 2005
Posts: 948
Location: Mexico City

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2012 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnslat

And how are the Senate Democrats going to be able to change the filibuster/cloture rules if the Repuglicans block it with 41% of the vote?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnslat



Joined: 21 Jan 2003
Posts: 12292
Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear geaaronson,

I'm hoping that after November 6th, I'll be better able to answer that Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy.

Regards,
John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geaaronson



Joined: 19 Apr 2005
Posts: 948
Location: Mexico City

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnslat

I hope your premonition is correct. Perhaps after all, the Republicans will fold their cards and decide to seriously look at Obamaīs proposals and deliberate over them for the sake of the nation, rather than reject them outright out of political gain and their desire to remove him from a second term.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wesharris



Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 177

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's an election season.
Such thinking would make no sense at this time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
geaaronson



Joined: 19 Apr 2005
Posts: 948
Location: Mexico City

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wes

We`re talking about after the election. Think about it. Use your imagination.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2011 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Road2Spain - TEFL and Spanish with one year student visa
EBC