ObamaCare comes up before the Supreme Court today

xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
3 days/8 hrs of oral arguments - a case hasn't had this much time alloted to it in decades.

For those who wanna watch it, most of the major networks should be covering it, but it will be intermittent since no camera's are allowed inside.
«134

Comments

  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,569 ✭✭✭
    Cant wait to bust ur balls on this one Macro------unless of course they find it unconstitutional, in which case I will be curiously absent from conversation.
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Vulchor:
    Cant wait to bust ur balls on this one Macro------unless of course they find it unconstitutional, in which case I will be curiously absent from conversation.
    ROFL - same way I feel; I've got one hand on the "I told you so" button, and one foot out the door :p
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Update - the USSC had the option to delay the case until after 2014, when the full law takes effect; from their posture, it seems that they don't want to. Seems the Justices are inclined to hear the case now, instead of waiting until there are definable injuries. Really no surprise here; it was incredibly unlikely they'd schedule 3 days of oral argument, only to say on the first day "we'll punt on this".

    Oral arguments begin over the mandate tomorrow

  • gmill880gmill880 Posts: 5,947
    Vulchor:
    Cant wait to bust ur balls on this one Macro------unless of course they find it unconstitutional, in which case I will be curiously absent from conversation.

    Its unconstitutional to bust Macro's balls ??? Damn Mac , your a pretty powerful dude ! ( Snaps to attention and salutes ; ) ) ...
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    Vulchor:
    Cant wait to bust ur balls on this one Macro------unless of course they find it unconstitutional, in which case I will be curiously absent from conversation.
    Come on Vulch, we want you hear your disappointment. I'll gladly add my mine if your side wins, while I'm busy oiling and shinning my weaponry. LOL
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,569 ✭✭✭
    gmill880:
    Vulchor:
    Cant wait to bust ur balls on this one Macro------unless of course they find it unconstitutional, in which case I will be curiously absent from conversation.

    Its unconstitutional to bust Macro's balls ??? Damn Mac , your a pretty powerful dude ! ( Snaps to attention and salutes ; ) ) ...
    The mans balls are quite legal.......or was it something about odor being lethal.....either way.
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Vulchor:
    gmill880:
    Vulchor:
    Cant wait to bust ur balls on this one Macro------unless of course they find it unconstitutional, in which case I will be curiously absent from conversation.

    Its unconstitutional to bust Macro's balls ??? Damn Mac , your a pretty powerful dude ! ( Snaps to attention and salutes ; ) ) ...
    The mans balls are quite legal.......or was it something about odor being lethal.....either way.
    image
  • denniskingdennisking Posts: 3,703 ✭✭✭
    Interesting thing I learned today: you can be fined for not carrying your own healthcare insurance under the healthcare reform. That seems unconstitutional to me.
  • Ken_LightKen_Light Posts: 3,539 ✭✭✭
    dennisking:
    Interesting thing I learned today: you can be fined for not carrying your own healthcare insurance under the healthcare reform. That seems unconstitutional to me.
    This is the major sticking point of it. However, there is a provision in there where if it costs more than something like 15% of your annual income, you're exempt. Don't get me wrong, I'm against the bill, but I'm also for you being fully informed.
    ^Troll: DO NOT FEED.
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    I'm curious as to how they would actually be able to tell if you own insurance. How do we know who doesn't? Is this just for citizens who file income taxes? What about the poor? What about aliens, legal or not? How do you tell? Will you be required to "carry" proof? How about a national ID? The left already argues that the poor are burdened by even getting an ID. Voter laws?
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 3,984 ✭✭✭✭✭
    dennisking:
    Interesting thing I learned today: you can be fined for not carrying your own healthcare insurance under the healthcare reform. That seems unconstitutional to me.
    I heard Tom Coburn discussing another aspect that worries me, the lack of accountablity of the Comittee, or Bureau, or Panel, or whatever it will be that sets the rules concerning re-imbursement to the providers. When reimbursement is too low to cover costs, and it likely will be so, then the provision of health care to the recipients will suffer, and how will this be addressed? Does the individual then make up the difference "out of pocket"? Not necessarily all bad, everyone behaves a little more responsibly when their skin's in the game, so to speak, but we already have too many overly powerful bureaucracys now.
    "Do not trust in your own righteousness, do not worry about the past, but control your tongue and your stomach...a time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him saying, 'You are mad, you are not like us'." - St. Anthony from Sayings of the Desert Fathers.

    "It is a simple matter to determine when a true genius has arrived on earth, all the dunces will convene to form a coalition against him."  --  Jonathon Swift

    Simple reductive logic reveals every "Zero Tolerance" policy to be, in fact, a "Zero Intelligence" policy.--Me


  • TheedgeTheedge Posts: 316
    I have a feeling that the folks in favor Obama care (at least many of them) don't know what they're asking for. The first time they actually have to pay for something.....they might not like it so much.
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    I've read the transcripts from today and it was very telling. We had liberal justices trying to help the solicitor general make his argument. And he took a beating from the conservatives. It doesn't look too good for the mandate.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,569 ✭✭✭
    No it does not-------I (and millions of others) lose again:/
  • KriegerKrieger Posts: 337
    'murrica. land of the free and the represented... as long as your a white, middle to upper class white dude with money to burn.

    I keed I keed... i hope...
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    Krieger:
    'murrica. land of the free and the represented... as long as your a white, middle to upper class white dude with money to burn.

    I keed I keed... i hope...
    Could you translate that?
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,569 ✭✭✭
    Agreed Krieger---agreed.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    Justice Kennedy will decide this one. Personally, I find the hearing of this case during this election to be purely political, and I also believe there will be a 5 - 4 decision.

    For the record, I think the individual mandate will be upheld, because both health care and insurance are unique capital markets that cross all State lines (qualifying for inclusion under the commerce clause) and involves everyone who lives in the US. Healthcare isn't like any other market, because hospitals cannot refuse service to sick people, and insurance requires the healthy to be covered in order to make it affordable for those who actually need the coverage.

    If I am starving, and without money, and I go to a grocery store or resturant, they are not required to feed me. However, hospitals ARE required to care for me if I show up at an emergency room, thus driving up costs for everyone else if I do not have health insurance. I also believe the mandate will be upheld with restrictions and qualifications that prevent the government from extending it to other markets.

    There are only two other options (to the individual mandate) that will "solve" our healthcare delima; 1) A "single-payer" system that would cover everyone, without requiring anyone to purchase insurance, or 2) Removing the burden of universal care from hospitals, allowing them to refuse service to sick people if they cannot pay. I would not want to live in a society that did this.

    Personally, I find the individual mandate to be the best possible solution, which is why so many conservatives were for it before they were against it (after the Devil incarnate - Mr. Obama - chose it over the public option). It solves the problem while requiring personal responsibility and reliance on existing capital markets instead of the other two options. It is a market-based solution, and we know it works because of the auto insurance model. That's why the Heritage Foundation came up with it in the first place.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,569 ✭✭✭
    Hate to sound like a broken record here-----but well said JDH.
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    JDH:
    Justice Kennedy will decide this one. Personally, I find the hearing of this case during this election to be purely political, and I also believe there will be a 5 - 4 decision.

    For the record, I think the individual mandate will be upheld, because both health care and insurance are unique capital markets that cross all State lines (qualifying for inclusion under the commerce clause) and involves everyone who lives in the US. Healthcare isn't like any other market, because hospitals cannot refuse service to sick people, and insurance requires the healthy to be covered in order to make it affordable for those who actually need the coverage.

    If I am starving, and without money, and I go to a grocery store or resturant, they are not required to feed me. However, hospitals ARE required to care for me if I show up at an emergency room, thus driving up costs for everyone else if I do not have health insurance. I also believe the mandate will be upheld with restrictions and qualifications that prevent the government from extending it to other markets.

    There are only two other options (to the individual mandate) that will "solve" our healthcare delima; 1) A "single-payer" system that would cover everyone, without requiring anyone to purchase insurance, or 2) Removing the burden of universal care from hospitals, allowing them to refuse service to sick people if they cannot pay. I would not want to live in a society that did this.

    Personally, I find the individual mandate to be the best possible solution, which is why so many conservatives were for it before they were against it (after the Devil incarnate - Mr. Obama - chose it over the public option). It solves the problem while requiring personal responsibility and reliance on existing capital markets instead of the other two options. It is a market-based solution, and we know it works because of the auto insurance model. That's why the Heritage Foundation came up with it in the first place.
    What else do you suggest that the government mandate us to buy?
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭
    JDH:
    There are only two other options (to the individual mandate) that will "solve" our healthcare delima; 1) A "single-payer" system that would cover everyone, without requiring anyone to purchase insurance, or 2) Removing the burden of universal care from hospitals, allowing them to refuse service to sick people if they cannot pay. I would not want to live in a society that did this.

    this is INCREDIBLY narrow minded. there are WAY more than two. those ARE two and options. however, if you choose to not violate rights and keep Government from violating the rights of the Individual this opens up countless other options.

    you are thinking like a totalitarian, where the government is the only solution to the problem. there are other solutions. you just choose not to see them.
  • stephen_hannibalstephen_hannibal Posts: 4,317
    kuzi16:
    JDH:
    There are only two other options (to the individual mandate) that will "solve" our healthcare delima; 1) A "single-payer" system that would cover everyone, without requiring anyone to purchase insurance, or 2) Removing the burden of universal care from hospitals, allowing them to refuse service to sick people if they cannot pay. I would not want to live in a society that did this.

    this is INCREDIBLY narrow minded. there are WAY more than two. those ARE two and options. however, if you choose to not violate rights and keep Government from violating the rights of the Individual this opens up countless other options.

    you are thinking like a totalitarian, where the government is the only solution to the problem. there are other solutions. you just choose not to see them.
    +1

  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,569 ✭✭✭
    There may be more the 2 options Kuz...sure. However, ho wmany practical options are there? Or ones that could truly ever be implemented? Its easier to talk in hypotheticals and propositions than it is to put forth actual plans that are feasible.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,569 ✭✭✭
    And Beat------I cant think of another good/service whatever that is similar to insurance. So I dont see anything these that could be mandated. I am open to hear things similar, but it is a rather unique catergory.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭
    Vulchor:
    There may be more the 2 options Kuz...sure. However, ho wmany practical options are there? Or ones that could truly ever be implemented? Its easier to talk in hypotheticals and propositions than it is to put forth actual plans that are feasible.
    there are many practical options. Everything from tort reform to letting insurance be sold across state lines to having insurance be what it was intended for not "everyday" issues or routine maintenance. but again, you wont listen to them. we have been down this road before. there is no point in trying with people that "know" that government control/regulation is the only "practical option"

    never has violation of rights been "practical"
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,569 ✭✭✭
    I will listen to anything and dont really appreciate the condescending tone, though it is expected. None of the ideas you stated are any more able to be put in place than Obamacare. The left will bash those ideas, as the right has for Obamacare. This is my point...make ideas both sides can agree on, not just the talking points for the side you prefer. I do not prefer the mandate as a violation of rights, or a leftist proposal---I prefer it as it makes peopel accountable for their own expenses instead of passing that on to others. To me, paying for another guys expenses because he doesnt have insurance is the definition of violating my rights.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    "...you are thinking like a totalitarian, where the government is the only solution to the problem. there are other solutions. you just choose not to see them. ..."

    The government is not the solution to this problem with the individual mandate; the insurance market and individual personal responsibility are the solutions. That's why conservatives originally proposed the individual mandate, and were solidly behind it until Mr. Obama decided to use it. Now it's "totalitarian". Was it "totalitarian" when the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole, and nearly every single member of the Republican Congress (under Clinton) endorsed it?

    The only reason I see for this opposition to something that most conservatives were originally for is pure and simple hatred of President Obama, and an obsession with opposing ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING he proposes. I see it as being more about insuring that Mr. Obama fails than with pragmatically dealing with a complex problem that badly needs fixing. In other words, opposition to the individual mandate is political, and does not consider either the facts of the proposal, or the history of the proposal, or the problems that will be caused if a solution to out healthcare system is solved.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,569 ✭✭✭
    Might I also add that within 2 posts of you getting into a political discussion you have alraedy insulted 2 people you replied to. Also broke your own word of not participating in such discussions which I assume has at least something to do with the fact you cannot control your comments about others personal feelings.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭
    JDH:
    "...you are thinking like a totalitarian, where the government is the only solution to the problem. there are other solutions. you just choose not to see them. ..."

    The government is not the solution to this problem with the individual mandate; the insurance market and individual personal responsibility are the solutions. That's why conservatives originally proposed the individual mandate, and were solidly behind it until Mr. Obama decided to use it. Now it's "totalitarian". Was it "totalitarian" when the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole, and nearly every single member of the Republican Congress (under Clinton) endorsed it?
    it was totalitarian then as well. just because one side or the other puts it forward doesnt mean that there isnt a fundamental truth about it.
    i mean, im sure you can agree that there are many conservative ideas that violate the rights of the individual.
  • JDHJDH Posts: 2,107
    kuzi16:
    JDH:
    "...you are thinking like a totalitarian, where the government is the only solution to the problem. there are other solutions. you just choose not to see them. ..."

    The government is not the solution to this problem with the individual mandate; the insurance market and individual personal responsibility are the solutions. That's why conservatives originally proposed the individual mandate, and were solidly behind it until Mr. Obama decided to use it. Now it's "totalitarian". Was it "totalitarian" when the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole, and nearly every single member of the Republican Congress (under Clinton) endorsed it?
    it was totalitarian then as well. just because one side or the other puts it forward doesnt mean that there isnt a fundamental truth about it.
    i mean, im sure you can agree that there are many conservative ideas that violate the rights of the individual.
    I disagree. It was not totalitarian then, and it's not totalitarian now.
«134
Sign In or Register to comment.