TexasCHLforum.com

gdanaher wrote:Just something to ponder. Y'all are not typical of any group other than Texas CHL holders, and honestly you may not be typical of that group either, because while the number of licenses issued and active is something less than a million, the number of people who are active here is perhaps in the hundreds. How are Texas CHL holders different? They respect the second amendment, they recognize the need for self protection, and they have gone to the extraordinary lengths to train, take classes, and pay fees that many consider exorbitant, in order to exercise their rights in this state. Most people, no, nearly everyone, is less inclined to express their feelings by such an investment of time and treasure.They may spout conservatism but at the end of the day they fail to vote, they fail to think, and they fail to participate. What I get out of these discussions here is a bit of bewilderment on the part of some folks that since you think a certain way, and since many of the other group members think as you do, that the rest of the world is the same. The rest of the world you think of as actively conservative is more likely offering occasional lip service and little more. Honestly, if the majority of 'conservatives' were as intensely active as y'all are, the problems you see in the structure and execution of the government would not exist as a problem for anyone if those 'conservatives' you elected to represent your views had done their job, and performed as requested.

I cannot find a statement about which I more strongly disagree.

1. Some of us are very active in local politics. I personally stood on a street corner and waved a sign for a candidate who, if elected, would not represent me. Why? Because his opponent had been a henchman for Joe Strauss and I viewed her demise as a representative in the Texas House as a huge win for me. Fortunately, we succeeded. She is gone.
2. I, personally, don't expect anyone to act in a Conservative manner. Our society has been so brainwashed by those who have held the power in our education system that I don't expect the average person on the street to understand Conservationism, let alone embrace it. Our schools have been designed to turn out flag waving Liberals and until the basis for that is changed, we are going to get more of the same. Fortunately, again, there has been good progress in breaking the stranglehold that Liberals held on the education (indoctrination) of our young people.
3. The media, in lock step with the lying Liberals, has made it difficult for the average citizen to understand the truth. I'm wrong, eh? Ok. Let's take a poll about the number of tax increases and the resulting escalation of the costs built into Obamacare. I'll bet that not 1 in 10 citizens gets it anywhere near right. Obama laments that the Right did a better job of getting in front of the discussion. Horse pucky. Even after the bill was passed, the voting public will not understand what is going to hit them until it does. By then, it is too late.
4. You and I are in violent agreement that the chief position of most people is bewilderment. I don't care what the topic - Obamacare, 2nd Amendment, DHS - you name it. The facts have been so badly distorted that it is difficult for the most diligent among us has a great deal of difficulty finding the truth. I readily admit that I don't always understand the truth myself. But I've forgiven myself because I fully understand that the term "obfuscation" applies. I'm not supposed to want to understand the truth but down deep, I'm a red pill kind of a guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redpill
I vote. I campaign for candidates that I believe in. On the other side are dead voters, obfuscation and Elitism across party lines. I just wish that I could convince more people to take the red pill. That is my mission.

74novaman wrote:

pops1982 wrote:What's to stop him from suspending the elections if he thinks he will loose?

He won't. I heard the same speculations about Bush and Clinton. He may release a flurry of executive orders on his way out, but no US President is going to suspend elections.

Never say never. I'm no longer shocked at anything that happens in the Federal government. There are a whole lot more "surprises" that are going to happen between now and November.

pinkpistol wrote: The problem today is pay-as-you-go politics... which is Bipartisan.

You all have missed the insurance (money) influence here. Insurance will love Obamacare, because there is a payor, and like Medicare, will seek to limit payouts based on a whole host of criteria. WHICH EXCUSE ME, MANY OF YOU CONSUMERS, NOT SUPPLIERS, OF HEALTHCARE, know nothing about.

We are in violent agreement that the fraud of pay as you go politics is Bipartisan. The Ponzi scheme that is Social Security has been perpetrated by both parties.

I, for one, didn't miss the insurance industry influence. But I dismiss is as being very short lived. The goal is and always has been that if Obamacare stands, it will quickly morph into a single payer system. There is no need for medical insurance when that happens. There may be some sort of sham arrangement initially but there is too much money involved to not have the Federal government completely absorb everything.

And you are absolutely correct that there will be limits set on payouts. There are limits today and those will get worse under the Federal system. It's called rationed care. In its extreme, it is also called death panels. or boards of bureaucrat who decide whether you, as an individual, are worthy of treatment or are simply too old to have the procedure that you need. The insurance industry limits will seem very generous by comparison.

Heartland Patriot wrote:. Now, go back to wherever your little friends are and tell them how cool you are for spinning up folks on a gun forum...

Somehow, I don't believe that it took much to "spin up the folks on the gun forum" on this topic. Can you say "hair trigger?"

The Mad Moderate wrote:I for the most part support the ACA, I do not like the mandate but see it as necessary given the mandates put on the insurance companies. I think that in the near term rates will go up in the long term I think the costs will go down and be even more affordable. I think in 70 years the ACA will be looked at in the same way the Social Security Act is viewed now. This is not the death of freedom.

Ok. How?

There are several ways that costs can go down.
1. Greater efficiency. What in the ACA provides for any greater efficiency in any part of healthcare? There is page after page in the ACA of "and the secretary (HHS) will write regulations" Sorry, the last time I looked, greater regulation is the antithesis of efficiency.
2. Greater personal responsibility. Our insurance has very steep co-payments. A single surgery this year cost us $4,350 for just the hospital stay (3 days). When people have to share in the medical costs, there is a greater need to examine the healthcare that they are using. Please show me any place in ACA where personal responsibility will increase.
3. Lowering costs for providers. If you talk to medical professionals, they will explain how their costs continue to skyrocket. Mal-practice insurance is a big factor. The increased regulations that are already in place, outside of ACA are also driving up the costs. The new reporting in ACA alone is going to further raise their cost of just trying to stay in business
4. Using greater volume to spread the costs. While it might seem like there is a great opportunity here, with potentially 20-30 million "new" patients, the arrangements made with big Pharma to get ACA have assured that there will be no savings in medicines. In fact, the shortages that are already occurring in critical medications will have the opposite effect. Medical device makers have new taxes which is going to drive up costs for things like my wife's artificial knee. A greater volume of knee surgeries is not going to overcome that.

So, exactly where, over time, are savings going to come from? They will come....from rationing care. Please look at what is happening to the military healthcare and tell me how that is NOT going to happen under ACA.

I'm sorry but when you go through the flow chart and come to the block that says "and here a miracle occurs", you are not dealing in reality. The block is also in the flowchart to allow normal citizens to carry concealed handguns in NY. You cannot get there from here.

There isn't enough disk space for this forum to explain exactly how correct you are about comparing ACA and Social Security. It is not at all what you believe.

flintknapper wrote:I have always contributed (monetarily) to the Republican Candidate in Presidential elections.

But this time, I will give until it HURTS! I urge you to do the same.

Replace and Repeal is the ONLY answer at this point, forget about what judge decided what...that is done and over with, we have a job to do. GET OBAMA OUT OF OFFICE, or America will suffer a set back from which it might never recover.

Unfortunately, I have done the same thing in the past and we have to show for it a boat load of Rinos who walk, talk and act like Democrats. Are you willing to bet your life savings that Republicans who get elected to help repeal Obamacare will do so? I'm not.

The polls are showing Obama in the lead in several of the key swing States. Even if he is beaten badly, the chances of reversing the majority in the Senate are very slim at best. Unless and until the Senate is changed, repeal of Obamacare through the legislative process is a pipe dream.

They are already talking about a massive grab of our 401Ks to fund the Social Security system problem that noone except a few Republicans wants to talk about. The ruling today that they can tax anything makes the 401K "tax" almost inevitable. For the record, SCOTUS didn't invent the tax capability, they merely affirmed that Congress has it. I fear SS will be the next drum beat on the Hill and Obamacare will be a distant memory in their minds. Somebody please show me a shred of evidence that says I'm wrong. I would cherish it.

Slowplay wrote:

74novaman wrote:You know, as disappointing as the ruling was, far more disturbing to me is the number of friends/acquaintances on facebook and elsewhere downright cheering this massive federal power grab.

I fear for our future, if the people are truly happy about handing in freedom for benefits.

Let's see if they are still celebrating when their employers opt to pay the penalty, drop their health care options/benefits, and have them fend for their own health care policies (or they forego buying insurance and are forced to pay the Obamacare tax).

For our francophone friends: L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs

Love your reference en français.

I don't think that we'll have to worry about any of your areas of concern. Affordable Care is a pathway to a single payer system. The more onerous that it becomes in the initial implementation, the more quickly that transition occurs. From that there is almost no possibility of recovery.

And I don't think "good intentions and desires" were any part of the intention. Mensonge et tromperie sont la une meilleure description.

The interesting part of this is that SCOTUS upheld based on the tax argument presented by the Executive branch - and argument that had never been made public before. I've heard countless pundits say that the Obamacare argument was lost by the Dems because the opposition got out in front of it and mis-represented it. It will be interesting to see how the "win" is spun since it IS a tax. How does that square with the administration's claim that they haven't raised taxes?

If the Obamacare opposition cannot seize this opportunity, there really is no hope for anything.

Edit: Page 33 of the ruling confirms that the tax does not apply to anyone who does not pay Federal income taxes. Therefore, Affordable Care does NOTHING about medical costs for about nearly half of the population who don't pay taxes. This appears to be the loophole that the designers wanted to drive us to a single payer system. UK, here we come.