By the time that litigation gets decided the ACA will be in full swing, the ACA will be popular, the litigation will be moot, and I will be $20 richer...

freeman3 wrote:Governor John Kasich accepts Medicaid expansion for Ohio due to "Christian compassion" for the poor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/us/me ... .html?_r=0
If he acted out of Christian compassion, I applaud him for it. Of course, I am an atheist and I am an atheist because there is no convincing evidence that God exists. Still Jesus Christ's teachings about concerns for others, particularly for those less fortunate, will always have resonance. What is so disappointing is that in this country a devout Christian is more likely to be a Republican, a member of a party not particularly sympathetic to the problems of the poor. Not that I am a big fan of Governor Kasich, but in this instance I believe he acted based on a concern for the poor.

Please. You're an atheist because you don't want to think your actions will have future ramifications. All the evidence in the world would not change that.

Back on topic: what if the subsidies are ruled illegal in 34 States?

freeman3 wrote:By the time that litigation gets decided the ACA will be in full swing, the ACA will be popular, the litigation will be moot, and I will be $20 richer...

Um, not if the law is struck down. It was upheld only with regard to the individual mandate.

As for its popularity, talk to me after several more weeks of bad reports about the website, etc. Tens of thousands lost their insurance in the past few days.

Time is on my side.

And, in the unlikely event you are right, the US will be heading for the ash heap of history, so you'll have that to cherish too.

Doctor Fate wrote:It may fall because of legal issues the Democrats' political obstinacy will make irreversible.

Because the Republicans are in no way being obstinate?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/10/obamacare-is-in-trouble-with-the-law-again.php

In short, the subsidies are illegal in most of the States. There is no way the GOP will help fix it. The end result: either a court will have to illegally rewrite the law or it will collapse.

I'm betting on the latter.

No, there is a case that alleges that it is illegal to apply the tax credit in those 34 states where the Republicans refuse to set up an exchange, but that case has not been heard yet. It may well lose (I guess that's what you'd interpret as the court acting 'illegally').

Alternatively, it could succeed, but that may simply mean that people in those 34 states lose out. Will they be grateful to their State governments for ensuring they are unable to benefit from the tax rebate?

Of course, if the case wins it could be sorted with an amending bill through Congress. Would the GOP House let that through?

Doctor Fate wrote:Please. You're an atheist because you don't want to think your actions will have future ramifications. All the evidence in the world would not change that.

What evidence do you have for that assertion? Or is it just a snipe because your main argument is weak.

fate

As for its popularity, talk to me after several more weeks of bad reports about the website, etc. Tens of thousands lost their insurance in the past few days.

he GOP-led federal government shutdown over Obamacare has dramatically backfired on Republicans. Nearly two-thirds of active voters, the largest share yet, support the health insurance reform law and want it to work, new nationwide polling has found.

“A new national survey conducted for Democracy Corps and the Women’s Voices Women’s Vote Action Fund shows an intense new majority for implementing and improving the Affordable Care Act,” the report begins. “A minority of voters want to repeal or replace ‘Obamacare,’ which has been the core demand of the Republicans in Congress who have shut down the government.

”
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/gops_ni ... r_partner/

Seems to me that your argument is that more people will suffer from the ACA then benefit. Since the current health insurance system is so bad, (complex, expensive, unattainable) thats hard to imagine. If people are enjoying the benefits , as the "liberal nutcase" who was quoted earlier .... those experiences will over come the negative assertions.
People will want to explore the option for themselves... rather than listen to the claims of Hannity and his ilk. That is the powerful thing about the exchanges ....they provide consumers with a great deal more information and power in their insurance "shopping" than they had before. And the regulations on benefits and premiums have ensured that the plans on offer are of better value than many had before ...
I don't think time is on the side of the opponents Fate. Even Ted Cruz said that if the ACA was up and running by the end of the year that it would become unassailable.
As for the inconvenience of the web site...
People will stand in line over night to save $400 on a television at Best Buy. They'll camp out for two days to get tickets to a concert or a football game.... If the savings that the "liberal nut" reported are possible, people will endure some inconvenience...
The 10 states that have their own web sites and exchanges have not had the problems of the .gov site by the way.... You'll be hearing far more from those states as time goes by...and if that kind of information trickles through to the have not states whose republican governors have fought the ACA .... what alternative will these governors be offering>?????
(That's the problem with the law suit too. The suit is essentially saying that the people in these states shouldn't be receiving benefits other Americans are receiving. How is that going to be viewed by voters?)

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Please. You're an atheist because you don't want to think your actions will have future ramifications. All the evidence in the world would not change that.

What evidence do you have for that assertion? Or is it just a snipe because your main argument is weak.

He said there isn't good evidence. He's wrong. But, evidence does not always carry the day. In the first 6 chapters of John, Jesus does many miracles (signs), yet He ends that chapter with only a handful of followers. Why?

Because His teaching was demanding.

rickyp wrote:fate

As for its popularity, talk to me after several more weeks of bad reports about the website, etc. Tens of thousands lost their insurance in the past few days.

he GOP-led federal government shutdown over Obamacare has dramatically backfired on Republicans. Nearly two-thirds of active voters, the largest share yet, support the health insurance reform law and want it to work, new nationwide polling has found.

“A new national survey conducted for Democracy Corps and the Women’s Voices Women’s Vote Action Fund shows an intense new majority for implementing and improving the Affordable Care Act,” the report begins. “A minority of voters want to repeal or replace ‘Obamacare,’ which has been the core demand of the Republicans in Congress who have shut down the government.

”
http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/gops_ni ... r_partner/

Seems to me that your argument is that more people will suffer from the ACA then benefit. Since the current health insurance system is so bad, (complex, expensive, unattainable) thats hard to imagine. If people are enjoying the benefits , as the "liberal nutcase" who was quoted earlier .... those experiences will over come the negative assertions.
People will want to explore the option for themselves... rather than listen to the claims of Hannity and his ilk. That is the powerful thing about the exchanges ....they provide consumers with a great deal more information and power in their insurance "shopping" than they had before. And the regulations on benefits and premiums have ensured that the plans on offer are of better value than many had before ...
I don't think time is on the side of the opponents Fate. Even Ted Cruz said that if the ACA was up and running by the end of the year that it would become unassailable.
As for the inconvenience of the web site...
People will stand in line over night to save $400 on a television at Best Buy. They'll camp out for two days to get tickets to a concert or a football game.... If the savings that the "liberal nut" reported are possible, people will endure some inconvenience...
The 10 states that have their own web sites and exchanges have not had the problems of the .gov site by the way.... You'll be hearing far more from those states as time goes by...and if that kind of information trickles through to the have not states whose republican governors have fought the ACA .... what alternative will these governors be offering>?????
(That's the problem with the law suit too. The suit is essentially saying that the people in these states shouldn't be receiving benefits other Americans are receiving. How is that going to be viewed by voters?)

People will love glorious leader's plan!

I'll wait. The ACA is the government's Corvair.

Doctor Fate wrote:I'll wait. The ACA is the government's Corvair.

The Corvair was in production for 10 years, sold nearly 2,000,000 vehicles, and for a time, was one of the most popular cars sold in the United States. You may be right Doctor, but the ACA could also be a complete failure. We're going to have to wait and see, I guess.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Please. You're an atheist because you don't want to think your actions will have future ramifications. All the evidence in the world would not change that.

What evidence do you have for that assertion? Or is it just a snipe because your main argument is weak.

He said there isn't good evidence. He's wrong. But, evidence does not always carry the day. In the first 6 chapters of John, Jesus does many miracles (signs), yet He ends that chapter with only a handful of followers. Why?

Because His teaching was demanding.

People, people, people, can we check the religious discussion in the hall outside the forum? Or at least put it in its own forum?

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Please. You're an atheist because you don't want to think your actions will have future ramifications. All the evidence in the world would not change that.

What evidence do you have for that assertion? Or is it just a snipe because your main argument is weak.

He said there isn't good evidence. He's wrong. But, evidence does not always carry the day. In the first 6 chapters of John, Jesus does many miracles (signs), yet He ends that chapter with only a handful of followers. Why?

Because His teaching was demanding.

People, people, people, can we check the religious discussion in the hall outside the forum? Or at least put it in its own forum?

I always find it interesting in who brings religion up first, as if it is a supporting defense they believe in.

Almost always it is used as an attack on a person of religious faith's compassion. When those who attack that way begin to understand the teachings of Christ (as is often the target), their argument would have much more impact.

As it is, they sound like an ignorant person engaging in "whataboutery" (Danivon's term)

I was asking for DF's evidence for his assertion - which was essentially telling freeman that his stated reason for being an atheist was a lie and that DF knows freeman's mind better than freeman does. Not seen that, of course.

The guy who brought up religion and compassion was John Kasich. freeman made it very clear that he did not see religion (or lack of) as the basis to support his position, or even Kasich's, but that he did agree with the Republican Governor of Ohio that compassion for the poor is important.

Quite why DF felt the need to make a personal remarks about freeman's beliefs (which are not religion) or the reasons for them I don't know. Showing off his 'mindreading' trick again I guess.

The 'target' being atheism I guess is fair game, bbauska?

But hey, what would we non-believers understand about the teachings of Christ, a man who went around healing the sick (and not asking for payment), criticized the rich, helped the poor, said things like:

"Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys." (Luke 12 33)

"When you give a luncheon or a dinner, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return, and repayment come to you. But when you give a reception, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, since they do not have the means to repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." (Luke 14 12-14)

The young man said to Him, "All these commands I have kept; what am I still lacking?" Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me." (Matthew 19 20)

" Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. ...Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabbath. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter. " (James 5 1-6)

" "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. And all the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on His left.
Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'
Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite you in, or naked, and clothe You? And when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'
And the King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'
Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'
Then they themselves will also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'
Then He will answer them, saying, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matthew 31-46)

Now these seem fairly easy to understand, as with some of the Old Testament stuff like Deuteronomy 15 7 and 26 12, Proverbs 31, Isiah 58 66....

Now, I'm sure we can argue all day about the basis for Christianity as a belief system, but that was not really what freeman was talking about. Christ (and the preceding prophets), and other religious sources have quite a bit to say about compassion for the poor, as do many other thought systems - to the point that, well, it could be considered not just an common religious theme but a human theme.

Anyway, what I note is that I did answer DF's point about what could happen in the legal case, and that's been ignored because of pearl-clutching (oh, you mentioned religion!!! - again, blame John Kasich).

I think it's not a slam dunk case, even if DF does because a right wing blog says so and it hasn't been thrown out summarily.

But even if it does succeed, there are ways around it. One is quite simple - the States implement the law. Another is that the federal law can be changed to make it compliant - if the House allows it.

In the interests of not being 'obstinate', I assume the Republicans would consider those courses of action, right?

danivon wrote:Anyway, what I note is that I did answer DF's point about what could happen in the legal case, and that's been ignored because of pearl-clutching (oh, you mentioned religion!!! - again, blame John Kasich).

I think it's not a slam dunk case, even if DF does because a right wing blog says so and it hasn't been thrown out summarily.

But even if it does succeed, there are ways around it. One is quite simple - the States implement the law. Another is that the federal law can be changed to make it compliant - if the House allows it.

In the interests of not being 'obstinate', I assume the Republicans would consider those courses of action, right?

Does Kasich post on Redscape? Awesome! I like him a great deal! BTW, DF was answering Freeman. Freeman brought religion into the forum. If you have issues bring it up with him. Until then, I agree with GeoJanes...

I had heard that the individual mandate was a Heritage Foundation idea hatched to combat HillaryCare, but I didn't know the whole story. It's pretty interesting how things have completely flipped on this issue. 20 years ago you couldn't get a leftist to give the idea the time of day. Maybe because it was the conservative solution? Interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/policy/health-care-mandate-was-first-backed-by-conservatives.html?_r=0