If Obamacare falls, expect civil disorder

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/20 ... -v-burwell

I predict that if some people lose people they care about because an adverse court ruling prevented them from accessing health care that would have saved their lives, some of those people are going to take up some guns and assassinate politicians. There would be several assassinations all across the country as revenge for refusing to pass the fixes that would have saved the assassins' friends and relatives. Mostly state legislators would go down, due to lower security for them, but some people would be able to net a couple governors and a few Congressmen.

Hospitals across the country would shut down because they can no longer afford to take the indigent leading to more deaths. People all across the country would be forced to see their relatives slowly die from lack of health care.

I tell you, in such a situation, if you do not allow yourself to even bend, then you would break. President Obama would be forced to declare a state of emergency for the whole country. The military, watching from a distance, seeing the country plunge into disorder because of an inflexible political system, might decide to set the President and Congress aside, might decide to round up the President and his Cabinet along with Congress and put them all in a brig on a ship somewhere out on the Atlantic Ocean, and the general in charge would declare himself Acting President of the United States of America and would set up an emergency cabinet. He or he with his cabinet would issue laws by decree. He would federalize the National Guard in all states. If the Supreme Court protests, then he would round them up, too, and throw them in the brig. The same would be true for any state governments that oppose him.

Hey, this is a presidential system, and we've seen many presidential systems end up this way (especially in South America); once the President and Congress become so diametrically opposed, the political system cannot bend at all and becomes so completely inflexible that absolutely NOTHING gets done, the military usually intervenes in such cases, as history has shown us multiple times in the past half-century or so.

So, people who support Obamacare so much so that they would kill others over its possible injunction would also "take up some guns"?!? Aren't they largely the same people who oppose even toy guns and the occasional kid pointing his trigger finger (or gun-shaped Pop-Tart) at friends? I doubt seriously that they would know how and where to buy a firearm, much less use it efficiently; except, of course, for those anti-gun people like U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein who actually own and carry concealed firearms.

I agree, however, that a second civil war is being provoked by several groups who believe that they are opposing each other when they are opposing themselves if they examine their ideas critically. There will likely be many reasons that such a war will ignite. Obamacare opinions might be one of the reasons. The single biggest reason, in my opinion, will be when United Nations military forces are asked to "protect" U.S. citizens from created false-flag "enemies" within the United States. That is what the globalists in our federal and several state governments have openly admitted and trained to do. They really do expose their own agenda if we listen carefully.

I will say this: The deadlock is likely to continue.

The Democrats have had the advantage in the popular vote and the electoral college since 2008. I think the Democratic candidate is likely to win the Presidency in 2016. I also think that with the class of 2010 coming up for election in the Senate in 2016, a class dominated by Republicans, there's a decent chance we could see the Democrats take back the Senate; after all, the Republicans won 2014, because it was the class of 2008, very Democratic, that was up for election.

But above all, thanks to the advantages the Republicans enjoy in Congressional districting this decade, the Republicans will win the House again.

You don't seriously think that everyone dependent on the marketplace and the subsidies to get health care for their conditions and their friends and family members are all liberal gun control freaks, do you?

Not all, but most. However, I can't think of one gun-owning friend of mine (I know hundreds, liberal and conservative) who would start shooting over their lack of healthcare. That isn't intended to dismiss the importance of healthcare, but, I just don't see the lack of it provoking much of a reaction among those who are, as you described, related to others who depend on such care.

Remember that it is still possible for anyone to buy their healthcare insurance. I suspect that the majority of U.S. citizens fall into that category. Even if Obamacare is enjoined temporarily or permanently, private insurance, federal Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' insurance, and state-funded insurance will still be there for those who qualify. For those in the resulting gap, I suspect many will, unfortunately, suck it up and do what it takes to get and keep private insurance. However, they appear for now to be the most vulnerable.

I'm not talking about revenge over lack of access to health care, I'm talking about revenge over the deaths of loved ones which likely could have been prevented by a simple legislative fix that the legislators refused to do out of stubborn opposition to the law itself.

I can see some people with guns thinking that such revenge would be justified, that the legislators in question forfeited their lives when they set in motion a series of events leading to a loved one's death.

Yes. I can see that happening. The brother of a friend of mine from years ago was so angry about a local hospital which performed a tubal ligation for his wife, he held hostages all night at gunpoint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_View ... e_incident .

But, I don't believe instances like this, or worse, would be statistically common, even with deaths resulting from an injunction of Obamacare.

Easy solution: once a president loses his majority in the house, new elections are called.

My understanding of King vs Burwell is that the writers of the ACA did not put in specific language in the law and now want the courts to add it in there for them ??

Seems like you are taking a stance on legal interpretation too (i.e., intent or implication matters over what is actually written)?

King vs Burwell
"The question presented by the case that the Court granted Friday is how to interpret legislative language chosen by Congress. Underlying that issue, however, is the broader question whether the words Congress chooses are to be the sole guide to what a law does, or whether the larger purposes that Congress seems to have in mind should determine how to read the words."
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/court ... subsidies/

why weren't they doing this before obama care? seems unlikely given they weren't that they won't do it after obama care.

now drop something like food stamps and you will see riots. in the few cases it happen due to error we saw people panic and mini riot. over not being able to use it for few weeks due to a glitch imagine if the republicans got their way and all food stamps, ssi, ssdi, et were just stopped, no more aid to anyone. i can see the nation having massive violence then. isn't it like 34% of the nation relies on that stuff to live, so imagine if tomorrow millions of people found out they were going slowly starve to death.

I don't see there being another civil war, mixed military has seen to that. we don't have us military bases filled with troops are born in that state. troops are moved all over the nation to prevent such things. the civil war was possible cause they had pre existing troops and bases that just had to change uniforms. mean maybe you could do national guard vs federal military but they'd be so outgunned. if it did happen I suppose one would have a whole bunch of mini firefights throughout all us bases.

I doubt that people will die due to Obamacare being thrown out. At least not any more than would have died if it had never been passed. It turns out that many of the people who would benefit the most from O-care are the same ones who refuse to sign up because of the right wing propaganda campaign. You have people who are eligible for subsidies refusing them, people paying the tax penalty rather than getting healthcare, and justifying it by saying that "I'm a FREE MAN, I don't need the Kenyan's [Obama] fake slave program!" Will people die? Sure, but they won't care due to a "better dead than Red" mindset. It's such people that would start a civil war. We're talking about people who want to force severely disabled people to work while living in states that get $2 in federal spending for every $1 paid in taxes. Obamacare is poorly written, yes, but the Republicans refuse to offer a real alternative except people paying for HC in cash, which has already bankrupted thousands.

Yeah just look at the state of things...even people here are being f***ing idiots, trying to provoke crap when there's already a lot of tension about a girl who the cops shot to death, allegedly she was in a stolen car and drove it at them but the facts are unclear even whether or not the car was actually stolen is unclear as well as a couple other incidents I don't know a ton about...except one involved cops beating on a guy, no idea what the crime was and tripping his pregnant girlfriend and some other person getting shot....I think civil disorder is inevitable regardless of if obamacare falls or not. So ok that is all very f***d up and the Denver cops really need to get ahold of themselves, way too much corruption. But that doesn't mean throwing buckets of red paint of a memorial to police officers who have died doing their job is a good way to handle it, like a couple jacka**ses did at a protest that was meant to be entirely peaceful as far as I know but what do you think got media attention?...less corruption is needed, the ones who abuse their power need to be held accountable but that kind of crap is just going to cause a big sh*t slinging contest that we really don't need.

That is just here, it seems things aren't going so wonderfully in a lot of other states/cites throughout the country as well, as far as tension.


^that is what seems to be about to happen to that pot of tension that's brewing.

From what I've read, quite a few people on ObamaCare can't actually afford to seek treatment because of the high costs. They might get plenty of help paying the premiums on a $6,000 deductible plan but they still have to come up with the money for the deductible before the insurance pays.

Subsidies may also lower your deductable and out-of-pocket maximum. For example, my plan was going to be a $5000 deductable plan (and I don't remember what the out-of-pocket maximum was), but with the subsidies the deductable is $750 and the out-of-pocket maximum is $2000.

I live in a state with a federal health exchange. I have no idea what I would do if I lost the subsidies, or even worse, were forced to pay back the subsidies I had already received (which the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell have stated they want to happen for people who have received subsidies on the federal exchanges).

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... -no-return

There is a lot of debate about the text surrounding it, for example where the law states that if a state fails to establish a marketplace exchange for itself, then the federal government must step in and establish "such" exchange for the state. Because of the use of the word such to describe what the federal government must set up, an exchange established by a state, the law is interpreted that where states do not form marketplaces, then the federal government acts in place of the state--it steps into the state's shoes. So "exchange established by the state" can refer to exchanges established by the federal government.