1. Originally posted by stj0691:First, I want to include this link, I think some might like it, some will not.

    http://21st-century-classical-liberal.tumblr.com/post/26323662103/15-reasons-why-the-obamacare-decision-is-a-mind-blowing

    Anyways.

    While we're on the topic of healthcare, I think it's really important to remember people do need it, since it's really nice to have. Letting people buy insurance is one thing, forcing people to get insurance is another. In the grand scheme of things, it protects the sick. If you look at what is supposed to go into effect as of Jan 1st (if the thing isn't repealed by Congress), they're all generally nice - for the sick.

    In my home state of Massachusetts, you either have health insurance, or (for the most part), you pay a tax penalty. Oh, and the penalty just went up recently, too. There's a list of appeals and exemptions too, found here. The Massachusetts law is the "core" of what Obamacare is. And for those wondering, Romney helped come up with the MHRA. Anyways, the only exemption if you aren't in severe poverty is the religious exemption, of which, has to be included. You can thank the Constitution for that. Which also, is very limited to what religious beliefs are exempt and which ones aren't.

    Anyways, as a result of this, it's created longer waiting time for doctors and higher costing insurance premiums. I want to remind people that Massachusetts raised the state tax a few years ago by 1.25 percent, too. I'm unsure about whether the state had a budget defecit or surplus, though. I'll post about that later after researching to see how the state has fared financially. Here's some history about that though. The ACA is pretty much the same, some of the differences include new taxes and more coverage for the sick. The Obamacare plan does have religious exemption, too.

    So what does this mean? If you favor higher taxes and for things to cost a little bit more, and you believe everyone should have coverage to protect the sick, this is for you. You don't have to get it, but you'll be paying taxes into it anyway. If you don't like higher taxes and like costs as they are (for now), there's always private insurance. If you can't afford that, you can try for religious exemption if that is your case. The religious exemption does not cover paying more taxes, though.

    tl;dr: Obamacare raises costs for everything health insurance related like a medical insurance bailout, and defends the sick to the best it can. Also, everyone pays more taxes.

    Its a state level law. 10th Amendment. Know it, love it.
  2. Originally posted by Ali709:I'm no expert in American laws, but that link you put up there...and many things I've been hearing about "obamacare" it just seems like too much exaggeration to me. Some of the reasons they give are plain stupid and the whole rhetoric sounds partisan which is not a good sign.
    I like the way you put it Steve, at least you're just explaining the situation.

    I'm not really for or against forced healthcare, but I am always against people who disagree with something for forced reasons. And of those 15, and the ones Aaron gives, 90 percent sound forced to me.

    I'm agaisnt a partisan congress forcing a 2'000 plus page bill through that the majority of my people dont want and which has to be passed to see whats in it.
  3. Well if the majority doesnt want it, it will be out next year.

  4. You'll love this bit about Obamacare then. In order for a state to opt out of this, they [the state] have to provide a plan that has the same coverage and the same cost. I would imagine having to force a state to have to adopt a federal plan of some sort could only be avoiding by calling it a tax. Somebody please tell me I'm wrong though, because if the Supreme Court missed this, it's a huge miss.

    By the way which part of my post are you referring to?

  5. You know something, Aaron? You're as boring with your you-commies-will-burn-in-hell shit as Yogi with his anti-yankee/NATO propaganda, but he at least participates in other sections of our website and our forums. You just come over and over to the Politics thread, only to fight people and spread your speeech. This is a U2 website with some off-topic things like this thread, but U2start is not a political forum. If you want a dedicated politics forum, register over at US Message Board, or maybe take a look around Political Forum (worldwide forum, not only US-related) and Debate Politics; I really think those are the websites you're actually looking for.

    I have *nothing* against right-wingers who reasonably argument their positions; my best friend leans very much towards right wing, and we're best friends since 21 years ago. It's just an example tos how you that I respect opinions, whether I share them or not, and I don't have anything personal against those who don't share my opinions (something you can't afford to say, by the way). But man, I *do* have something against those who just repeat their arguments over and over, and automatically dismiss and/or insult anyone who opposes them with true thoughts and arguments.

    I'm done with you, seriously. But lemme tell ya: one more "piss off", "fuck off", "you suck", "I don't give a damn about you" or any of other equivalent bullshit towards any of our truly appreciated and useful members, and you will be the one who's done with U2start.


    Did I explain myself clearly enough?
  6. Moving on to the EU...can someone explain to me why they decided to ban sunscreen over SPF 50?

  7. Where did you hear it? I guess the news you heard/read should carry some extra information and not just the title...

    Anyway, SPFs above 50 are virtually innefective and marking a sunscreen as anything above that might mislead people to think they're more protected when they're not, and therefore maybe taking risks when they shouldn't.
  8. I haven't heard anything about it, and when I search the internet I only find information about... ehm... the United States thinking of forbiding them For example: http://www.myhealthbeijing.com/2011/06/is-your-sunscreen-spf-50-dont-waste-your-money/ (2011 article speaking of a probable 2012 ban). This article gives figures that support my previous post: SPF 2 blocks 50% // SPF 15 blocks 93% // SPF 30 blocks 97% // SPF 50 blocks 98% // SPF 70 blocks 98.6% // SPF 90 blocks 98.9%...

    And this is an online petition to, erm, United States Food&Drug Administration, to ask for a ban of those high SFP sunscreens: http://forcechange.com/21405/ban-misleadingly-branded-high-spf-sunscreens/ ... "sunscreens with an SPF above 50 don’t actually offer any additional protection, despite the higher number on their label. People who wear high-SPF sunscreens are therefore deluded into thinking they can stay out in the sun for longer without reapplying sun protection–a delusion that leads to irreversible skin damage.".


    So, there you are.
  9. Iran would be very stupid to close the strait.
  10. So far Iran perfectly knows what they can get away with. The dude might be mad, but he is not stupid.