1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Supreme Court Sets Historic Showdown For Health Law

Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by ethics, Nov 14, 2011.

  1. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

  2. dsl987

    dsl987 Member

    That's basically what we have now, except this way the others get preventative care plus a decent level of care when sick, without burdening emergency rooms.
     
  3. SixofNine

    SixofNine Jedi Sage Staff Member

    oprah_health_care.jpg

    LOL (stolen from George Takei's FB).
     
  4. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

  5. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    I look forward to the day when Pelosi steps down! What effect do you think the SCOTUS ruling will have on the outcome of the November election?
     
  6. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Honestly? I don't think it will have much. As much as Republican voters hate Obama this healthcare bill helps them out in MidWest much more so than already progressive policies in Liberal states. They should be welcoming this with open arms no matter how much it is against their ideology.
     
  7. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    The election will be decided by registered voters that actually go and vote on election day. So it doesn't matter how it impacts non-voters or how they feel or don't feel about it. It's just the voters that count. What do polls show regarding whether or not at this moment the voters are happy about the outcome? The majority are unhappy. The lynchpin of the unhappiness at gut level is the federal government by this bill have taken away or infringed upon one's liberty, freedom, or rights. Of course the voters are going to be basing their votes on more than just the health care bill. Plus the health bill is going to be kicked around in the media, by talking heads, and congress between now and the election. Who knows how close today's feelings will be to those on election day.
     
  8. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    I am not so sure they'll love it when it really kicks in. How many Americans have the patience to wait for medical treatment? I had an aunt in Canada who waited six years to get knee surgery.

     
  9. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    Yeah, a lot can happen between July and November.
     
  10. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Then this is what needs to happen, for people of all colors and political spectrum to get reality get real, if you will, and not some point to argue on the internets as any were gloating from Facebook,to twitter, heck, the only intelligent and genuine curiosity were in my g plus circles. Liberals and Republicans were discussing as to what it meant to THEM and not Romney, Pelosi,a dn Obama.
     
  11. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    I've got an interesting twist on this... I'm not sure how much mustard this will carry, BUT it seems legitimate to me.

    It's been deemed a tax by SCOTUS, but otherwise constitutional.

    Except that taxes have to be initiated in the House of Representatives. This bill was initiated in the Senate as a purchase, not a tax. It cannot be funded as a tax as it stands. It's essentially invalid.
     
  12. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    Obama is yelling that it isn't a tax. I fear the next four years will be even crazier than the past four if we have to spend the time arguing over it's a tax/it's not a tax. I thought it was the penalty for not purchasing insurance that SCOTUS labeled a tax. Enough of this craziness. I'm going to hit the sack!
     
  13. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    People need to remember that this isn't socialized medicine as Canada, UK, and other countries have implemented. All this bill does is require everyone to maintain insurance. That's it! The medical system itself has changed very little. All the government did was implement rules that requires everyone to buy insurance.
     
  14. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    SCOTUS has said it's constitutional but it is a tax. Obama can scream all he wants, but he can't take it back to them arguing it's not a tax. This essentially invalidates the bill, since it originated in the wrong place.
     
  15. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    I have a feeling it'll change a lot more than that.

     
  16. cmhbob

    cmhbob Did...did I do that? Staff Member

    According to Wiki, it initiated in the House as the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
     
  17. cmhbob

    cmhbob Did...did I do that? Staff Member

  18. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    I was looking at the Reddit link Leon provided. Among other things, in 2014 they'll cut some Medicare spending. I know there's fraud there, but goodness only knows what they'll decide to cut. In 2020 Medicare Gap (the supplementary insurance we PURCHASE to cover the remaining 20%) will disappear. It'll be very interesting to see what things will be like eight years from now.

    If it's just about people needing to purchase insurance (with some exceptions), then why on earth did it take about 1,000 pages to do it?
     
  19. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    That darn CJ, John Roberts had sullied my pre-decision record on accurately predicting how the Supreme Court would rule on select cases. That included a prediction by me on Obama Care. I said that the individual mandate would fail under the commerce clause of the constitution, as the federal government cannot compel anyone to buy anything. Also the commerce clause regulated activity. Not inactivity! (Like not buying health insurance.)

    Going into the starting gate as the law went before the court for review everyone but everyone was saying the whole health law revolved around two issues. One was the individual mandate that everyone argued was either permitted or wasn’t under the commerce clause of the constitution. End of story! The secondary question was if the majority of the court ruled that the mandate was not constitutional under the commerce clause what about the rest of the health care bill? Keep all of it, part of it, or toss the whole thing.

    So what happen? Five justices agreed that the individual mandate was not constitutional under the commerce clause for the reasons I stated. Four of them also said toss the whole bill.

    Then the bombshell! Chief Justice Roberts said yeah, the mandate isn’t constitutional under the commerce clause but it is constitutional as a tax! What the deuce! Does the man not believe in legislative language and labels used in its congressional bills? They said it was a penalty not a tax. By Robert’s logic all taxes are therefore penalties. Call me crazy but I doubt that is concept embraced by the founders and authors of the constitution. Wasn’t taxation used as a penalty as in taxation without representation a jump-start to the founding of our nation?

    Then to add injury to insult it appears from the compelling circumstantial evidence that Roberts originally sided with the four dissenters thereby ruling out with the mandate and maybe out with the whole Obama Care. However, apparently at the last minute, after most of the decisions had been written that Roberts flipped and said that will, yeah, the mandate is out under the commerce clause but its OK as a tax. (What changed the guys mind and at the last minutes?)

    Here is a brief summary to support the above conclusion from Robert’s own hand as he commented on the commerce clause by saying that Okaying the mandate under the commerce clause was wrong as it "would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority…gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress's actions have reflected this understanding." So there!

    But then he said it was OK it was tax and part of proof that it was tax was that..."the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation." (The IRS, the only legal terrorist organization in the United States.)

    The four dissenters jointly and strongly said that Obama Care "exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non- consenting states all Medicaid funding."

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg is probably will not last another four years. Naturally whenever she or anyone else leaves the court the president will nominate their successor. A position I might add that is for life.

    Think it’s important to the entire nation who the president is when there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court?
     
    ethics likes this.
  20. Allene

    Allene Registered User

    Great post, Arc. Yes, it is of critical importance who we get as president in November. We could end up with more than one vacancy in the next four years. I don't want Obama to fill those vacancies!
     

Share This Page