DansDeals.com Forums

DansDeals Forum => Just Shmooze => Topic started by: meshugener on March 26, 2012, 06:42:58 PM

Title: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on March 26, 2012, 06:42:58 PM
As today was the first of 3 days of arguments regarding president Obama's Health Care Reform Act, there is a basic question weather the individual mandate is a tax or a penalty. It could make a difference on today's topic weather the court can rule on the law before the law is fully in effect, so if its a tax they'll have to wait till '14 or '15, and on tomorrow's topic weather the mandate fell under Congress's authority to imposs taxes.   What do you think? My first thought is that the purpose of the individual mandate is that everyone should have health insurance so there'll be more ppl in the pool, and not that ppl should pay the fine for not being covered. Thus, it is a penalty for not fulfilling your obligation, not a tax which is made for the purpose of revenue for the govt.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on March 27, 2012, 08:24:42 AM
Smoke screen!
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on March 27, 2012, 12:01:00 PM
Today's arguments: The constitutionality of the individual mandate. There are 2 arguments in favor: 1 congress has a power to regulate commerce, so as of today, the were in a crisis in terms of covering our health costs, so congress may regulate it. 2 congress jurisdiction to imposs taxes. The opponents side: #1 congress can only regulate commerce on someone in the commerce line but not fine someone for being "inactive" in commerce; #2 the law is not a tax, its a requirement to buy insurance, and if you don't have you should pay a penalty. But the supporters say its a tax and you can avoid the tax by buying insurance. Your thoughts? On #1 I can't decide, but on #2 I believe its not a tax since its not created for revenue (although, the language in the law is "tax" and it will be claimed by the IRS along with the annual taxes).
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on March 27, 2012, 02:10:51 PM
Situation looks very bad for Obama. Most believe the mandate will be struck down. #LuckyIHaveMedicaid
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on March 27, 2012, 02:24:32 PM
News flash: Obama has health care!
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on March 27, 2012, 02:35:34 PM
??
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on March 27, 2012, 04:45:22 PM
This whole thing is a gelechter.  Our "impartial" and "independent" justices are all going to decide this case on party lines like they always do. Scary how Justice Kennedy is running this country.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on March 27, 2012, 04:54:56 PM
This whole thing is a gelechter.  Our "impartial" and "independent" justices are all going to decide this case on party lines like they always do. Scary how Justice Kennedy is running this country.
::)
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AJK on March 27, 2012, 04:57:11 PM
This whole thing is a gelechter.  Our "impartial" and "independent" justices are all going to decide this case on party lines like they always do. Scary how Justice Kennedy is running this country.

Being unbiased, contrary to your implicit assertion, does not mean Judges and Justices are to make their rulings devoid of experience, background, and perspective.

Just because said experience, background, and perspective happen to align with a particular party does not mean a Judge or Justice decide the cases in accordance with that party.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on March 27, 2012, 05:08:49 PM
Being unbiased, contrary to your implicit assertion, does not mean Judges and Justices are to make their rulings devoid of experience, background, and perspective.

Just because said experience, background, and perspective happen to align with a particular party does not mean a Judge or Justice decide the cases in accordance with that party.
You are wrong. 

That said, they consistently do so in high profile cases.  They make the law fit into their politics.  Remember Bush v. Gore? It is a fact that no matter what the legal question is, Sotomayor will never, ever, vote to invalidate Obamacare, just as sure as Alito will vote against it.  It's an uncomfortable fact we have to live with. 
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AJK on March 27, 2012, 05:18:08 PM
You are wrong.

Well, now that we got that out of the way  ::) 

Quote
That said, they consistently do so in high profile cases.  They make the law fit into their politics.  Remember Bush v. Gore? It is a fact that no matter what the legal question is, Sotomayor will never, ever, vote to invalidate Obamacare, just as sure as Alito will vote against it.  It's an uncomfortable fact we have to live with.

So what you're saying is that if you were a Supreme Court Justice, you'd make your decisions completely devoid of any Jewish influence, conscious or unconscious, right?

Please.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on March 27, 2012, 05:23:35 PM
Well, now that we got that out of the way  ::) 

So what you're saying is that if you were a Supreme Court Justice, you'd make your decisions completely devoid of any Jewish influence, conscious or unconscious, right?

Please.
I can't control the unconscious, but I definitely would not do so consciously.  If my religion required this of me, I would not become a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AJK on March 27, 2012, 05:28:11 PM
I can't control the unconscious, but I definitely would not do so consciously.  If my religion required this of me, I would not become a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Great, so according to you, anyone with any exposure to religion, indeed anyone with any exposure to pretty much anything cannot become a Supreme Court Justice because... they'd be biased. I wonder what color the grass is in your utopian village.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on March 27, 2012, 05:34:48 PM
Great, so according to you, anyone with any exposure to religion, indeed anyone with any exposure to pretty much anything cannot become a Supreme Court Justice because... they'd be biased. I wonder what color the grass is in your utopian village.
Huh? 

Maybe this example will help:  If you are Catholic, you are likely anti-gay marriage, and you would likely support a ban on gay marriage.  If you are a Supreme Court Justice, however, you are required to put these feelings aside and decide based on the law as best you can (as I said, you can't control the subconscious).  You can uphold a ban on gay marriage because you don't believe in substantive due process, but you should not be against substantive due process be you are against gay marriage.   

Edit: that should read substantive. Fixed it.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on March 27, 2012, 05:48:47 PM
The whole case was in first place a question only on what Justices Kennedy will decide, we all knew from the beginning what the other 8 justices will rule. Now, after todays hearing it seems clear that Kennedy is leaning towards the conservative side.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AsherO on March 27, 2012, 06:43:54 PM
The real problem with "healthcare reform"/PPACA/Obamacare  is that healthcare costs will continue rising for everyone (insured and uninsured Americans and the Federal Government), there will still be millions and possibly tens of millions of uninsured people in the USA and with everything related to heathcare (from tort to malpractice insurance, to pharmecuticals to hospitals) run as a business that's so regulated and convoluted that the barriers-of-entry are too high for there to be any reasonable competition, we're in huge trouble with or without this law.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AJK on March 27, 2012, 07:14:48 PM
Huh? 

Maybe this example will help:  If you are Catholic, you are likely anti-gay marriage, and you would likely support a ban on gay marriage. If you are a Supreme Court Justice, however, you are required to put these feelings aside and decide based on the law as best you can (as I said, you can't control the subconscious).  You can uphold a ban on gay marriage because you don't believe in substantive due process, but you should not be against substantive due process be you are against gay marriage.   

Edit: that should read substantive. Fixed it.

Well, that solves my question. The grass in your little utopian village is... black and white.

No room for color, no room for experience, no room for upbringing, no room for perspective. Awesome.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on March 27, 2012, 07:17:12 PM
Well, that solves my question. The grass in your little utopian village is... black and white.

No room for color, no room for experience, no room for upbringing, no room for perspective. Awesome.
Huh? 
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AJK on March 27, 2012, 07:36:05 PM
K, I'll play.

Black and white was a (pretty apparent) allusion to your inflexible and warped view of reality.

Laws, like most things, have, and can be duly given, color. Whether you admit it or not, it would be utterly impossible for to you to even marginally set aside your upbringing, background, and perspective if you were the one in the high-backed chair presiding in judgment. What's more, it isn't required. No judge is required to "check his experience" at the door of the courthouse.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: MarkS on March 27, 2012, 08:09:15 PM
K, I'll play.

Black and white was a (pretty apparent) allusion to your inflexible and warped view of reality.

Laws, like most things, have, and can be duly given, color. Whether you admit it or not, it would be utterly impossible for to you to even marginally set aside your upbringing, background, and perspective if you were the one in the high-backed chair presiding in judgment. What's more, it isn't required. No judge is required to "check his experience" at the door of the courthouse.
The same way that you point out that a Jew would probably side with the Jewish viewpoint over his Democratic affiliation, in a matter like this, a Democrat will side with his Democratic viewpoint over any other view that he might otherwise consider.(since this is such a polarized Democrat/Republican issue - it's like their religion).
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AJK on March 27, 2012, 08:20:38 PM
The same way that you point out that a Jew would probably side with the Jewish viewpoint over his Democratic affiliation, in a matter like this, a Democrat will side with his Democratic viewpoint over any other view that he might otherwise consider.(since this is such a polarized Democrat/Republican issue - it's like their religion).

You missed my point.

My point is (and was) that just because experience, background, and perspective happen to align with a particular party (Democratic/Republican/Independent/Alien/Whatever) does not mean a Judge or Justice decides the cases pursuant to that party.

Parties are simply that: a collection of like-minded individuals, whether they are like-minded because of upbringing, background, experience or perspective.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: asd on March 27, 2012, 10:34:05 PM
Those in the know believe kennedy will side with the democrats on this one, based on his wanting to be excepted by high society and heathcare is one of their main agendas.So there you have it his vote wont come down to party loyalty but to his insecurities.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on March 27, 2012, 11:00:20 PM
Obviously you're mistaken. After todays hearing I don't believe there's one of "those in the know" who say he'll rule to upheld the law.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AJK on March 28, 2012, 09:31:07 AM
Actually, I think it is you who are mistaken. Justice Kennedy is known to look at each case individually. The fact that his questions yesterday tended to attack the Government's position does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that he'll strike down Obamacare.

Justice Kennedy himself may not know how he will rule yet, so to say that "no one in the know" thinks he'll uphold Obamacare would be like saying you don't think he'll uphold the law, which would be, no offense, meaningless.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on March 28, 2012, 09:37:36 AM
Those in the know believe kennedy will side with the democrats on this one, based on his wanting to be excepted by high society and heathcare is one of their main agendas.So there you have it his vote wont come down to party loyalty but to his insecurities.
This has to be one of the most intelligent comments in this thread.  ::)
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on March 28, 2012, 12:07:03 PM
K, I'll play.

Black and white was a (pretty apparent) allusion to your inflexible and warped view of reality.

Laws, like most things, have, and can be duly given, color. Whether you admit it or not, it would be utterly impossible for to you to even marginally set aside your upbringing, background, and perspective if you were the one in the high-backed chair presiding in judgment. What's more, it isn't required. No judge is required to "check his experience" at the door of the courthouse.
Right. If i were in the chair I would require separate schools for boys and girls and uphold a death penalty on adultary.  ::)
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AJK on March 28, 2012, 12:16:04 PM
Right. If i were in the chair I would require separate schools for boys and girls and uphold a death penalty on adultary.  ::)

My point is the same.

Great, so according to you, anyone with any exposure to religion, indeed anyone with any exposure to pretty much anything cannot become a Supreme Court Justice because... they'd be biased. I wonder what color the grass is in your utopian village.

Black and white was a (pretty apparent) allusion to your inflexible and warped view of reality.

Laws, like most things, have, and can be duly given, color.... No judge is required to "check his experience" at the door of the courthouse.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on March 28, 2012, 12:25:25 PM
This is Rule 2.2(2) of the Model Code of Judicial Conduct
Quote
Although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and personal philosophy, a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question
Is it your position that this is an impossible requirement to satisfy?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AJK on March 28, 2012, 12:28:18 PM
This is Rule 2.2(2) of the Model Code of Judicial ConductIs it your position that this is an impossible requirement to satisfy?

Uhm, perhaps you read too quickly, but nothing in there contradicts my position.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on March 28, 2012, 12:31:18 PM
Uhm, perhaps you read too quickly, but nothing in there contradicts my position.
I honestly can't figure out your position.  My original point was that the Justices should not, but often do, decide cases based on their political affiliation.  Do you disagree with this? I don't see how you can.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AJK on March 28, 2012, 12:41:00 PM
I honestly can't figure out your position.  My original point was that the Justices should not, but often do, decide cases based on their political affiliation.  Do you disagree with this? I don't see how you can.

All that Rule from the MCJC says that is that, despite whether the Judge approves or disapproves of a particular law, he must interpret and apply it. Noticeably lacking in that rule (for your purposes anyway) is a requirement regarding how the Judge is to interpret and apply it. Seemingly contrary to what you're suggesting, he or she can do so taking into account his or her experience, perspective and perception, whether or not those traits align with a certain political stripe or not.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on March 28, 2012, 01:00:41 PM
Todays session: hypothetical: if the mandate will be struck down, would the entire health care reform act go along? Why yes? Why not? No legal argument on that issue, only economical argument that the its not financially bearable for insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions patients at the same time when the healthy ones aren't required to pay into the pool. No legal experts here to give an opinion?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on March 28, 2012, 01:20:21 PM
Todays session: hypothetical: if the mandate will be struck down, would the entire health care reform act go along? Why yes? Why not? No legal argument on that issue, only economical argument that the its not financially bearable for insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions patients at the same time when the healthy ones aren't required to pay into the pool. No legal experts here to give an opinion?
AJK?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: MarkS on March 28, 2012, 01:34:43 PM
From MSNBC: I've bolded and underlined two sections...

Brace yourself for another 5-4 decision: Yesterday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court raised the distinct possibility that the individual mandate -- and perhaps the entire health-care law -- could be decided by another controversial 5-4 decision. Such an outcome, especially after other 5-4 decisions like Bush vs. Gore and Citizens United, would have two potential consequences. One, it would feed the perception that the U.S. Supreme Court is as partisan as Congress and increasing parts of the media; in other words, these nine justices (either trained at liberal law schools or members of the conservative Federalist Society) are essentially political actors wearing black robes. And two and most importantly, a 5-4 decision would satisfy no one. If the court strikes down the mandate and the health-care law by that narrow margin, liberals and Democrats would blame it on the conservative justices. If the mandate and law are upheld by a 5-4 decision, conservatives would point their fingers at the liberals and the unpredictable “mushy” swing justice, Anthony Kennedy. That’s the problem with a split decision: The losers would feel like they lost on a political technicality, not because there was a legal consensus.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on March 28, 2012, 01:38:15 PM
From MSNBC: I've bolded and underlined two sections...

Brace yourself for another 5-4 decision: Yesterday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court raised the distinct possibility that the individual mandate -- and perhaps the entire health-care law -- could be decided by another controversial 5-4 decision. Such an outcome, especially after other 5-4 decisions like Bush vs. Gore and Citizens United, would have two potential consequences. One, it would feed the perception that the U.S. Supreme Court is as partisan as Congress and increasing parts of the media; in other words, these nine justices (either trained at liberal law schools or members of the conservative Federalist Society) are essentially political actors wearing black robes. And two and most importantly, a 5-4 decision would satisfy no one. If the court strikes down the mandate and the health-care law by that narrow margin, liberals and Democrats would blame it on the conservative justices. If the mandate and law are upheld by a 5-4 decision, conservatives would point their fingers at the liberals and the unpredictable “mushy” swing justice, Anthony Kennedy. That’s the problem with a split decision: The losers would feel like they lost on a political technicality, not because there was a legal consensus.
This is why they should never disclose the vote total.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AJK on March 28, 2012, 02:40:46 PM
AJK?

Though I appreciate the vote of confidence, I am in no way, shape, or form a legal expert.

That said, just because one aspect of a law is struck down does not compel the remaining pieces to be struck down as well. The reason the arguments have focused solely on the economics is because that is the major issue. Can ACA survive without the mandate? Many believe (me included) that the answer to that is no. The mandate is the third leg of an already wobbly chair. Kick it out, and the thing falls over.

The losers would feel like they lost on a political technicality, not because there was a legal consensus

Who cares what the losers feel? All that is needed is a majority, the definition of which is five votes. That means a consensus. A legal consensus. Five or more people feel that the law dictates a certain outcome. Period.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on April 02, 2012, 11:29:24 PM
Obama on the fate of the law:

"Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"

"So there's not only an economic element to this and a legal element to this, but there's a human element to this. I hope that's not forgotten in this political debate."

Is this guy from another planet?  What does a (strong?) majority have to do with the Constitution?  What if the majority of Congress felt we should have segregated schools?!  And should the Justices really consider the "human" element in this "political debate?"  This guy is off his rocker!
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AJK on April 02, 2012, 11:32:34 PM
...and to think he taught con law at chicago.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: bubkiz on April 02, 2012, 11:47:37 PM
Obama on the fate of the law:

"Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress"
Excuse my ignorance, but has the court never yet struck down a law passed by Congress?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: Ergel on April 02, 2012, 11:49:27 PM
And who cares that it was democratically elected? The third Reich was also originally democratically elected (not saying they are like them, just making a point)
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on April 03, 2012, 12:21:32 AM
Is this guy from another planet?  What does a (strong?) majority have to do with the Constitution?  What if the majority of Congress felt we should have segregated schools?!  And should the Justices really consider the "human" element in this "political debate?"  This guy is off his rocker!
He is doing what he should be doing.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on April 03, 2012, 08:36:02 AM
He's just expressing his hopes (which I strongly share) in politician-style lexicon. Nothing funny.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: Ergel on April 03, 2012, 09:01:51 AM
As pointed out today in WSJ article he is the first president to do something like this and I find it inappropriate
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: mercaz1 on April 03, 2012, 09:02:38 AM
Scalia is going to be near my work today. wonder if he will talk about this case at all
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on April 03, 2012, 09:12:15 AM
Rubashkin filed a petition to the supreme court to review his case.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on April 03, 2012, 11:10:05 AM
He is doing what he should be doing.
Campaigning?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on April 03, 2012, 02:49:51 PM
Campaigning?
Trying to save something he believes in.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on April 03, 2012, 02:54:48 PM
Trying to save something he believes in.
His statements sent a chill up my spine.  This guy has no concept of limited government powers. 

If the Supreme Court overturns obamacare, Obama will try to implement it anyway. 

You heard it here first.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on April 03, 2012, 02:58:05 PM
His statements sent a chill up my spine.  This guy has no concept of limited government powers. 

If the Supreme Court overturns obamacare, Obama will try to implement it anyway. 

You heard it here first.
He will try and find a way so it won’t be struck down. 
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AJK on April 03, 2012, 05:16:53 PM
His statements sent a chill up my spine.  This guy has no concept of limited government powers. 

If the Supreme Court overturns obamacare, Obama will try to implement it anyway. 

You heard it here first.

How so?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on April 03, 2012, 06:33:28 PM
How so?
I'm not sure yet.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on April 04, 2012, 01:20:42 AM
His statements sent a chill up my spine.  This guy has no concept of limited government powers. 
At the meeting, Obama said the Supreme Court "is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it. ... I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has."

Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AJK on April 04, 2012, 10:51:21 AM
I'm not sure yet.

So what do you mean?

Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on April 04, 2012, 11:30:01 AM
At the meeting, Obama said the Supreme Court "is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it. ... I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has."
Didn't see that.  That makes it a little better.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on April 04, 2012, 11:35:36 AM
Didn't see that.  That makes it a little better.
Remember he is a politician. It reminds of the old joke. How can you tell when a politician is lying? He lips are moving.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AJK on April 04, 2012, 12:04:45 PM
Benchslap:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-department-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on June 19, 2012, 10:12:41 PM
His statements sent a chill up my spine.  This guy has no concept of limited government powers. 

If the Supreme Court overturns obamacare, Obama will try to implement it anyway.

You heard it here first.
bump

He did it with immigration; he will do with healthcare too. Watch
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: MarkS on June 28, 2012, 11:14:07 AM
Wow!! So the individual mandate was upheld... as a tax!

So basically, they agree that the government can't tell you that you must get healthcare .... but, they can say that if you don't- you will have to pay a $2,000 a year special tax.
So if you don't get insurance, they can't press any criminal charges, but they can tax you because they can tax whatever they want.
It's similar to smoking. They can't tell you not to smoke (and indeed it's not illegal to smoke). But they can say that if you do - you must pay a tax.

What's interesting is that when Obama marketed the law - he insisted that it's NOT a tax!!!!
And it turns out that the only way it's constitutional is as a tax!!

The one good thing that comes from all this is that now the republicans have great talking points for the coming election.....
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on June 28, 2012, 11:23:26 AM
Wow! What a surprise!
Thank you Justice Roberts!
And thank you Mr. Bush for appointing him to the court....
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: michael on June 28, 2012, 11:35:07 AM
Interestingly enough, I was talking to a right-wing constitutional expert a few months ago, and he told me that it's most likely that Roberts would switch sides, based on his jurisprudential history. He said there's almost no chance of Kennedy voting with the left on this one.

He was right! And he's probably fuming now as well.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 11:54:14 AM
Sad day for America. Who is going to pay for this mess?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on June 28, 2012, 11:55:30 AM
The people who used to use the emergency room without any coverage!
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 11:59:45 AM
The people who used to use the emergency room without any coverage!
That's not going to stop. Illegals are still going to go to the ER and be treated free.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: Saver2000 on June 28, 2012, 12:04:09 PM
That's not going to stop. Illegals are still going to go to the ER and be treated free.

+1
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on June 28, 2012, 12:09:01 PM
Its not only the iilegals who use ER.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 28, 2012, 12:14:39 PM
Sad day for America. Who is going to pay for this mess?
Do you have a mirror?  :)
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: PlatinumGuy on June 28, 2012, 12:15:39 PM
Sad day for America.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 12:29:56 PM
Do you have a mirror?  :)
Exactly. Seems the way to go is for everyone to quit their job, and just "take take take" everything you can get till there's nothing left.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AJK on June 28, 2012, 12:31:06 PM
Interestingly enough, I was talking to a right-wing constitutional expert a few months ago, and he told me that it's most likely that Roberts would switch sides, based on his jurisprudential history. He said there's almost no chance of Kennedy voting with the left on this one.

He was right! And he's probably fuming now as well.

Hell of call. He should have put his $$ where his mouth is.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: MarkS on June 28, 2012, 12:34:34 PM
CNN - Money:Healthcare ruling sparks broad stock sell-off (http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/28/investing/stocks-markets/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1)
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: bades on June 28, 2012, 01:00:34 PM
terrible
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AsherO on June 28, 2012, 01:04:56 PM
Sad day for America.

+1

Who is going to pay for this mess?

I ask differently: Who is going to bail the US out when our economy tanks and our currency/T-bonds are worthless?

CNN - Money:Healthcare ruling sparks broad stock sell-off (http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/28/investing/stocks-markets/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1)

Meh, market +/- 1-2% is normal these days...
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: michael on June 28, 2012, 01:08:36 PM
Hell of call. He should have put his $$ where his mouth is.

He probably did, though not financially. He's a bigwig with the Federalist Society, and is planning a career in politics one day.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 28, 2012, 01:16:27 PM
Everyone needs to relax. Take a Vicodin and a beer to kick start it and you will feel a lot better.  :)
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AsherO on June 28, 2012, 01:17:42 PM
Everyone needs to relax. Take a Vicodin and a beer to kick start it and you will feel a lot better.  :)

If everyone took your advice our collective healthcare costs would skyrocket even more than they do already.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 28, 2012, 01:21:21 PM
If everyone took your advice our collective healthcare costs would skyrocket even more than they do already.
That’s the short term view. Long term everyone would have less stress which should result in less health care issues (= less health care cost).  :P
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AsherO on June 28, 2012, 01:23:13 PM
That’s the short term view. Long term everyone would have less stress which should result in less health care issues (= less health care cost).  :P

And if everyone who needed treatment died because there would be no hospitals, we'd save even more money ::)
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 01:26:53 PM
If you want to bring down costs, try tort reform. Limit lawsuits... etc...
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 28, 2012, 01:29:51 PM
If you want to bring down costs, try tort reform. Limit lawsuits... etc...
That would help but how do you put a price on someone's life?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 01:32:05 PM
That would help but how do you put a price on someone's life?
You never can. Whats your point?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on June 28, 2012, 01:32:59 PM
Wouldn't reduce the costs as much as the current law.
Why are you all so scared?
You sound like Palin dogs.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AsherO on June 28, 2012, 01:35:15 PM
If you want to bring down costs, try tort reform. Limit lawsuits... etc...

+1000

That, and proper regulation of healthcare/insurance and incentivizing lower costs will go much further than any law in lowering our collective healthcare costs.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 28, 2012, 01:36:00 PM
You never can. Whats your point?
That putting a limit on lawsuits also puts a limit on what a persons life is worth. Catch 22.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AsherO on June 28, 2012, 01:39:05 PM
That putting a limit on lawsuits also puts a limit on what a persons life is worth. Catch 22.

A person's life is priceless, and careless doctors should have their licenses revoked and/or criminal penalties (probation/jail etc.), the current system takes the liability off doctors and turns it into a numbers game where the insurance industry double dips and robs us blind.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 01:44:47 PM
The current law is the biggest tax increase in world history.

The entire thing has been one lie after another.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 28, 2012, 01:47:55 PM
The entire thing has been one lie after another.
The problem is trying to figure out which side is telling the lies.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 01:51:06 PM
Wouldn't reduce the costs as much as the current law.
Why are you all so scared?
You sound like Palin dogs.
The current law costs more then the Iraq war ever cost!! We are scared because the bill is a giant mess that will make healthcare as organized as the DMV.
"Palin dogs"? seriously? from the party of "civility"?)?)?)
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 01:53:11 PM
The problem is trying to figure out which side is telling the lies.
Look at every other country that has government healthcare. See how well it works out.

The bill was sold to us as "no tax increase". The court this morning said that's the only reason they passed it.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 28, 2012, 01:57:01 PM
Look at every other country that has government healthcare. See how well it works out.
As long as I have been alive this country has always had some type of government run health care.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 02:01:27 PM
As long as I have been alive this country has always had some type of government run health care.
Which we avoided if we could. If the government would de-regulate the insurance industry, healthcare would be affordable!
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: MarkS on June 28, 2012, 02:04:03 PM
Interesting point that people are mentioning online:

Obama claimed that it is not a tax. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/)

When the SCOTUS heard the case, the first day of oral arguments were discussing if they are allowed to hear the case now - even though it didn't go into effect yet. If it's a tax, they can't due to the Anti-Injunction Act. If it's a penalty, they can hear it now.

With the current ruling that it's a tax, doesn't that mean that they shouldn't be ruling on it now because of the Anti-Injunction Act ???

Will we start a new court case in 2014 against this new tax???
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 28, 2012, 02:08:42 PM
Which we avoided if we could. If the government would de-regulate the insurance industry, healthcare would be affordable!
Now I understand where you are coming from. Do you watch FOX news?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 02:09:55 PM
Now I understand where you are coming from. Do you watch FOX news?
I don't own a TV. Do you watch everything other then FOX News?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: MarkS on June 28, 2012, 02:13:49 PM
Ouch!!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/health-care-ruling-scotus-cnn-gaffe-fox-news-154347515.html

CNN and FOX (http://www.vosizneias.com/108876/2012/06/28/new-york-news-organizations-dont-all-get-ruling-right) both initially reported that the mandate had been struck down!

Whoops!!   In the rush to have instant news, they didn't take 2 minutes to listen to the end of the sentence!!
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AsherO on June 28, 2012, 02:14:21 PM
If the government would  properly regulate the insurance industry, healthcare would be affordable!

I work in the industry and regulation is retarded.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 28, 2012, 02:22:50 PM
I don't own a TV. Do you watch everything other then FOX News?
When I want some good laughs I watch FOX and MSNBC. If you want the truth it is somewhere between the two.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 28, 2012, 02:24:19 PM
I work in the industry and regulation is retarded.
Regulations are like unions. A necessary evil.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 02:25:11 PM
When I want some good laughs I watch FOX and MSNBC. If you want the truth it is somewhere between the two.
The truth isn't on TV. Fox related media happens is a lot close to the truth. Ratings mean something.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on June 28, 2012, 02:33:42 PM
Interesting point that people are mentioning online:

Obama claimed that it is not a tax. (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/)

When the SCOTUS heard the case, the first day of oral arguments were discussing if they are allowed to hear the case now - even though it didn't go into effect yet. If it's a tax, they can't due to the Anti-Injunction Act. If it's a penalty, they can hear it now.

With the current ruling that it's a tax, doesn't that mean that they shouldn't be ruling on it now because of the Anti-Injunction Act ???

Will we start a new court case in 2014 against this new tax???
The Court dealt with that problem.  It's actually pretty lumdish.

The Anti-Injunction Act was created by Congress, and so can be defined by Congress.  Because Congress in the ACA chose to label the payment as a penalty, it showed its intent that the ACA is not to be within the scope of the Anti-Injunction Act.  But whether it can be considered a tax under Article I of the Constitution cannot be determined by Congress (though Kennedy disagreed with this point).  It is up to the Court to determine whether characteristically, it can be a tax as it was intended in Art. I.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on June 28, 2012, 02:35:00 PM
Remember, its the conservatives who originally came up with the idea of the individual mandate.
To say the mandate is government-run healthcare is a simple lie, (again, do you watch Fox...)
So its not comparable to other nations who have a national healthcare system.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on June 28, 2012, 02:37:37 PM
Remember, its the conservatives who originally came up with the idea of the individual mandate.
To say the mandate is government-run healthcare is a simple lie, (again, do you watch Fox...)
So its not comparable to other nations who have a national healthcare system.
+1
The individual mandate stands out only because it was the primary grounds for a constitutional challenge.  From a conservative policy-based standpoint, it is far from the most objectionable part of the act.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 02:40:46 PM
Remember, its the conservatives who originally came up with the idea of the individual mandate.
To say the mandate is government-run healthcare is a simple lie, (again, do you watch Fox...)
So its not comparable to other nations who have a national healthcare system.
As your "program" field says: you are on food stamps.
Ever considered getting a job, paying taxes, and then see how you like the new tax?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on June 28, 2012, 02:43:17 PM
Aha! You wanna go personal! Too late, don't come up with personal attacks when you don't have anymore logical. Next time do it at the beginning.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 28, 2012, 02:44:02 PM
Ever considered getting a job, paying taxes, and then see how you like the new tax?
OK, done. Now have three kids between the ages of 21-25 with no insurance and see how you like the new tax. Two sides to every story.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 02:45:20 PM
Aha! You wanna go personal! Too late, don't come up with personal attacks when you don't have anymore logical. Next time do it at the beginning.
Logic was throw in your face time and time again. You don't seem to respond to it. (read back the posts before you respond).
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on June 28, 2012, 02:45:27 PM
+100
I'm covered under my fathers plan thanks to the new law.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 02:47:10 PM
+100
I'm covered under my fathers plan thanks to the new law.
And who is paying for that?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 28, 2012, 02:50:41 PM
And who is paying for that?
Time for the mirror again.  :)
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 02:54:06 PM
Time for the mirror again.  :)
Sad but true. Its funny how people think things from the government are free.

The government makes $0, every penny they have is from us.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 28, 2012, 02:57:26 PM
Sad but true. Its funny how people think things from the government are free.
Everyone has a different perspective. Some look at things on how it affects us individually and some look at it on how it affects us as a country. 
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on June 28, 2012, 02:59:18 PM
Everyone has a different perspective. Some look at things on how it affects us individually and some look at it on how it affects us as a country.
Ask not...
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: MarkS on June 28, 2012, 02:59:52 PM
 
Sad but true. Its funny how people think things from the government are free.

The government makes $0 every penny they have is from us.
+1 
In a town hall meeting near Lakewood this week, Chris Christie mentions how it's our money that the Govt uses and they have to justify taking it...

Start watching from 2:20   Highlights to this conversation are 2:57-3:57
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: Dan on June 28, 2012, 03:00:06 PM
OK, done. Now have three kids between the ages of 21-25 with no insurance and see how you like the new tax. Two sides to every story.
I was a kid that age not long ago and had to figure out how to pay for my own insurance.  What's the problem with that?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 03:03:14 PM
Everyone has a different perspective. Some look at things on how it affects us individually and some look at it on how it affects us as a country.
As a country it would be AWESOME not to spent into bankruptcy.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 28, 2012, 03:04:09 PM
I was a kid that age not long ago and had to figure out how to pay for my own insurance.  What's the problem with that?
Unfortunately most kids that age feel they do not need insurance. So either way we end up paying for it.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 28, 2012, 03:06:43 PM
As a country it would be AWESOME not to spent into bankruptcy.
I believe our country has BIG problems but based on what I see in the rest of the world I don’t think any of us will be leaving any time soon.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on June 28, 2012, 03:12:09 PM
Unfortunately most kids that age feel they do not need insurance. So either way we end up paying for it.
So you like the mandate?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 28, 2012, 03:17:41 PM
So you like the mandate?
I don't like it but I would vote for it.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 03:20:23 PM
I don't like it but I would vote for it.
So where does it end? Where do you draw the line on what the government can mandate? Chevy volts for everyone!!
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 28, 2012, 03:37:02 PM
So where does it end? Where do you draw the line on what the government can mandate? Chevy volts for everyone!!
It does not end. What happens with these mandates/bills is there is usually some part of it that will benefit most people so it passes. They don’t consider the cost. 
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on June 28, 2012, 03:43:36 PM
The mandate itself (not taking in account all other parts of the law) has no cost for people already covered by insurance (and it'll only reduce the premiums), and for people who don't have, its the service they'll end up paying anyway, the government is just requiring to pay them in advance for the benefit of 'we as a nation'.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 03:53:07 PM
It'll put the insurance companies out of business! And just how will it reduce premiums??
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on June 28, 2012, 03:58:51 PM
Can you explain me how it'll get the insurance companies out of business while there will be more premium payers?
The more people that pay into the pool, the less the cost per person.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 04:04:21 PM
No one can compete with the government. They don't have to worry about things like profit. The companies going out of biz is inevitable.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on June 28, 2012, 04:06:33 PM
Again you say a simple lie:
The individual mandate is not that the government is running the Healthcare system.
I won't repeat it again.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on June 28, 2012, 04:07:08 PM
From Twitter:
 I'm going to write off my parking tickets as deductions, since they're apparently a tax....
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 04:09:40 PM
Again you say a simple lie:
The individual mandate is not that the government is running the Healthcare system.
I won't repeat it again.
Say it till you're blue in the face. Think for 5 min and realize it inevitably leads to single payer.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: Ergel on June 28, 2012, 04:20:25 PM
I think that the pre existing condition inclusion of the act is the one that will do the most damage. Now people just have to pay the tax/penalty and not get insurance and then just get insurance when they need it. This will lead to insurance bankruptcies
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: mercaz1 on June 28, 2012, 04:48:37 PM
the worst part is when business lay off people because they wont be able to afford healthcare for their employees
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on June 28, 2012, 05:01:21 PM
I find myself (oddly) on the side of meshugener here.  The mandate REDUCES the rates of insurance premiums because the insurance companies will no longer have to shift the cost of providing care to the uninsured onto the insured.  As for the preexisting condition requirement, the damage is only in the short term because by 2016, everyone will have to have insurance from birth anyway. 

The damaging sections of the bill are the arduous coverage requirements placed on insurers and the expansion of medicaid.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 05:10:52 PM
I find myself (oddly) on the side of meshugener here.  The mandate REDUCES the rates of insurance premiums because the insurance companies will no longer have to shift the cost of providing care to the uninsured onto the insured.  As for the preexisting condition requirement, the damage is only in the short term because by 2016, everyone will have to have insurance from birth anyway. 

The damaging sections of the bill are the arduous coverage requirements placed on insurers and the expansion of medicaid.
You can't just say: pay! and expect people to pay. The insurance companies will be hit with expenses they can't handle and shut down. That will lead to single payer which will lead to government run healthcare.
Title: Re: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: Ergel on June 28, 2012, 05:53:47 PM
As for the preexisting condition requirement, the damage is only in the short term because by 2016, everyone will have to have insurance from birth anyway. 
Unless they pay the tax/penalty
Title: Re: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 28, 2012, 06:30:44 PM
Unless they pay the tax/penalty
Which will be raised once everyone is on single payer.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on June 28, 2012, 09:23:48 PM
The funny thing about this ruling is that it was essentially a daas yochid.  4 justices didn't think it was a tax, 4 justices probably didn't even consider whether is was a tax.  Roberts alone decided it was a tax, and his sole opinion will affect all cases under the taxing power going forward.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: zale on June 28, 2012, 11:20:59 PM
Wow! What a surprise!
Thank you Justice Roberts!
And thank you Mr. Bush for appointing him to the court....

Meshugener, you are clearly a meshugener.

I want to lay out a few facts for you:


What Obama did now was simple: take money from people who work, and give it to people who either don't work, or make very little.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: zale on June 28, 2012, 11:29:44 PM
Democrats say: Sheli Shelcha, v'Shelcha Sheli.

Republicans say: Sheli Sheli, v'Shelcha Shelcha.

Adapted from OU.org:

The Dor HaHaflaga, the Generation of the Dispersal, was punished because it couldn't distinguish between the individual and the community. They said, "Sheli shelcha v'shelcha sheli," "What is mine is yours and what is yours is mine." The denial of the concept of individual property is the attitude, according to the Mishna, of the "am ha'aretz," the "proletariat." They had unity of a kind, but it was the mindless anti-human unity illustrated by the Midrash which says that the laborers on the Tower of Bavel were more disturbed by the loss of a brick than the loss of a human being. Theirs was the unity of the totalitarian State; in order for humanity to progress, they had to be dispersed.

The citizens of Sodom and Amorah had the attitude of "Sheli sheli v'shelcha shelcha," "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours." Now there is an opinion in the Mishna that this is a "midah beinonit," a "reasonable attitude," and indeed much of Seder Nezikin is concerned with the protection of individual property rights. But these people went to a terrible extreme. They set up a rigid distinction between the "I" and the "Thou," such that any attempt to reach out and assist the "other" brought forth condemnation and murderous outrage from the Sodomite and Amorites.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on June 28, 2012, 11:52:00 PM
The individual mandate is not that you should pay my bills, its the opposite: you should pay your own bills. Thr only way to make sure you pay your own medical expenses and you don't show up at the hospital already sick without any way to pay for your care (which have to be done no matter your financial abilities at that time) is to have you pay for it in advance. That's all.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: zale on June 28, 2012, 11:56:09 PM
The individual mandate is not that you should pay my bills, its the opposite: you should pay your own bills. Thr only way to make sure you pay your own medical expenses and you don't show up at the hospital already sick without any way to pay for your care (which have to be done no matter your financial abilities at that time) is to have you pay for it in advance. That's all.

You didn't answer my question. Who is paying for your extended stay on your father's insurance?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on June 29, 2012, 12:13:07 AM
My love to the law is because of the mandate and pre existing condition rule.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on June 29, 2012, 12:14:57 AM
Justice Ginsburg wrote: "Although an individual might buy a
car or a crown of broccoli one day,
there is no certainty she will ever do
so, And if
she eventually wants a car or has a
craving for broccoli, she will be
obliged to pay at the counter before
receiving the vehicle or nourishment.
She will get no free ride or food, at
the expense of another consumer
forced to pay an inflated price."
Short and clear, my point.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: zale on June 29, 2012, 12:22:56 AM
Justice Ginsburg wrote: "Although an individual might buy a
car or a crown of broccoli one day,
there is no certainty she will ever do
so, And if
she eventually wants a car or has a
craving for broccoli, she will be
obliged to pay at the counter before
receiving the vehicle or nourishment.
She will get no free ride or food, at
the expense of another consumer
forced to pay an inflated price."
Short and clear, my point.

Obviously, you are dodging the question, even after multiple members on this forum asked you who is paying for your stay on your father's insurance.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: MarkS on June 29, 2012, 12:29:29 AM
Insurance industry warns of higher rates, as ObamaCare supporters see long-term fix (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/health-care-law-and-insurance-rates/)
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 29, 2012, 12:57:57 AM
Obviously, you are dodging the question, even after multiple members on this forum asked you who is paying for your stay on your father's insurance.
The ones that are paying are the same ones that pay for the aid to Israel. You sure you want to go there?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: MarkS on June 29, 2012, 01:13:39 AM
The ones that are paying are the same ones that pay for the aid to Israel. You sure you want to go there?
And aid to Egypt and to Palestinians.....
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: zale on June 29, 2012, 01:28:23 AM
The ones that are paying are the same ones that pay for the aid to Israel. You sure you want to go there?

Absolutely, let's go there.

How much aid is going to Israel? How much aid is going to healthcare?

About 3 billion goes to Israel (that's 1/10 of 1%), and the majority of this money is used to buy military equipment FROM THE U.S. So, the money is essentially coming back into the U.S. economy.

Now, how much goes to healthcare? Somewhere around $300 Billion...
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 29, 2012, 01:47:48 AM
Absolutely, let's go there.
So you are for cutting all aid to Israel?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 29, 2012, 01:48:41 AM
And aid to Egypt and to Palestinians.....
Taxpayers like everything else.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: AsherO on June 29, 2012, 02:05:42 AM
Insurance industry warns of higher rates, as ObamaCare supporters see long-term fix (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/health-care-law-and-insurance-rates/)

The insurance industry would figure out how any ruling (in either direction) translates into higher premiums... :'(
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: Deal Guy on June 29, 2012, 03:06:07 AM
So you are for cutting all aid to Israel?
Hope you voted for Ron Paul. He sounds right up your alley regarding Israel.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 29, 2012, 03:14:33 AM
Hope you voted for Ron Paul. He sounds right up your alley regarding Israel.
So you feel you know my stance on Israel because of the questions I ask?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: Deal Guy on June 29, 2012, 03:38:09 AM
So you feel you know my stance on Israel because of the questions I ask?
Perhaps
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on June 29, 2012, 03:43:38 AM
Perhaps
Based on your Ron Paul comment you would be wrong.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on June 29, 2012, 09:43:10 AM
@zale
Again, what I'm defending here is the Individual Mandate and the ban to deny coverage for a person with pre existing condition.
The other parts of the law are not necessarily tied to these 2 parts.
I was just saying as a fact how I benefit from the ACA, maybe that part shouldn't be enacted, maybe. But I'm not arguing for that part.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on June 29, 2012, 10:32:49 AM
And about the costs you are talking about, here's a good point:
 the budget office's estimate of
the cost over the next decade of
Obamacare's "coverage provisions" -
basically, the subsidies needed to
make insurance affordable for all - is
about only a third of the cost of the
tax cuts, overwhelmingly favoring the
wealthy, that Mitt Romney is
proposing over the same period. True,
Mr. Romney says that he would offset
that cost, but he has failed to provide
any plausible explanation of how he'd
do that. The Affordable Care Act, by
contrast, is fully paid for, with an
explicit combination of tax increases
and spending cuts elsewhere.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: alexk. on June 29, 2012, 10:55:05 AM
One of the ways that they were planning on paying for Obamacare originally was by making every business transaction over $600.00 require a 1099. The government stuffed this into the healthcare bill because they figured there is a lot of unreported income that they can get their hands on and give penalties and fines to whoever doesn't comply. That would have meant every order from Staples, you hire someone to fix an air conditioner, call a plumber etc... requires a 1099. They were going to try to drown us in paperwork.

For the time being they repealed it. But here is proof that they did not believe this can pay for itself. They will tax us one way or another to pay for it.

We are going to end up like Canada.

It will take a month to get an appointment for a simple X-Ray.

 
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on June 29, 2012, 10:55:44 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/EHckl.jpg)
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: Dan on June 29, 2012, 11:43:04 AM
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/in-health-care-ruling-roberts-steals-a-move-from-john-marshalls-playbook/259121/?google_editors_picks=true
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: Dan on July 01, 2012, 11:20:59 AM
http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/30/obamas-ironically-prescient-speech-opposing-john-roberts-nomination-to-the-supreme-court/
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on July 01, 2012, 11:29:01 AM
http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/30/obamas-ironically-prescient-speech-opposing-john-roberts-nomination-to-the-supreme-court/
Give hope a chance!  :)

"I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court’s historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch."
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on July 01, 2012, 04:20:56 PM
For any who read the opinion, this article gives a fascinating backstory that led the decision the way it came down.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/

Most interestingly:
Quote
. . . the conservatives handed [Roberts] their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: skyguy918 on July 01, 2012, 08:10:46 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/in-health-care-ruling-roberts-steals-a-move-from-john-marshalls-playbook/259121/?google_editors_picks=true
http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/30/obamas-ironically-prescient-speech-opposing-john-roberts-nomination-to-the-supreme-court/

Fantastic finds, both of them. The second one is just an interesting footnote, but the first one... wow! If that was actually Roberts' strategy, that's a seriously sneaky genius move. Obviously it remains to be seen how this plays into each campaign going forward, but it has the potential to make the ruling even more important than it looks now.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on July 01, 2012, 11:12:17 PM
Fantastic finds, both of them. The second one is just an interesting footnote, but the first one... wow! If that was actually Roberts' strategy, that's a seriously sneaky genius move. Obviously it remains to be seen how this plays into each campaign going forward, but it has the potential to make the ruling even more important than it looks now.
When I read it initially I doubted that Roberts would actually pull something like that.  But the more I think about his judicial opinion, the more asinine his reasoning seems.  The idea that a piece of legislation can be interpreted in a way inconsistent with many of its provisions (as the dissent pointed out) is against the canons of interpretation, which is why every judge federal judge at every level who considered this case disagreed with that reading.  So I'm actually inclined to believe that this article is on to something. 
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on July 03, 2012, 06:46:44 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/in-health-care-ruling-roberts-steals-a-move-from-john-marshalls-playbook/259121/?google_editors_picks=true
I just heard an astounding piece of information that adds to Roberts's brilliance.  A consequence of the law being labelled a tax is that it is reconcilable -- meaning that it does not require a filibuster to overturn it--a simple majority will do. Mitch McConnell pointed it out.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: U-no-me! on July 03, 2012, 06:50:12 PM
I just heard an astounding piece of information that adds to Roberts's brilliance.  A consequence of the law being labelled a tax is that it is reconcilable -- meaning that it does not require a filibuster to overturn it--a simple majority will do. Mitch McConnell pointed it out.

??

The libs will fillibuster. you need 3/5 of the senate to break a filibuster
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on July 03, 2012, 06:58:19 PM
??

The libs will fillibuster. you need 3/5 of the senate to break a filibuster
Right. I mixed up the term.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on July 04, 2012, 12:10:33 PM
There was nothing brilliant in that ruling. It is a gross abuse of power and nothing more.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: skyguy918 on July 04, 2012, 12:20:10 PM
There was nothing brilliant in that ruling. It is a gross abuse of power and nothing more.

Read the article I linked to. You may not change your mind about the gross abuse of power part, but you probably will about the brilliant part.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on July 04, 2012, 12:48:29 PM
Funny how the conservatives are all for socialism (spread the costs of the uninsured over to all the people) and the liberals defending and requiring self-responsibility, everyone should pay their own medical expenses (individual mandate).
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on July 04, 2012, 01:47:57 PM
Read the article I linked to. You may not change your mind about the gross abuse of power part, but you probably will about the brilliant part.
The article you linked to was a nice read but nothing more.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: skyguy918 on July 04, 2012, 02:02:23 PM
The article you linked to was a nice read but nothing more.

First, a correction, Dan linked to the article. I've been telling people to read it often enough that I thought it was my link for a second.

good sam used the term brilliance about Roberts' ruling, which is a description that RJ took issue with. It seemed from his comment that RJ had not read the article upon which good sam was basing his opinion. I'm not saying that the Atlantic article has for sure divined Roberts' intentions in the ruling, or even that the 'plan' will lead to the desired result in the upcoming elections and beyond. All I'm saying is that if all this turns out to be true, we won't be able to deny Roberts' brilliance, even he displayed a gross abuse of power.

Now, having explained myself, maybe you can explain yourself. What exactly are you trying to say?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on July 04, 2012, 02:13:28 PM
Funny how the conservatives are all for socialism (spread the costs of the uninsured over to all the people) and the liberals defending and requiring self-responsibility, everyone should pay their own medical expenses (individual mandate).
Huh? Cost spreading through natural market forces is the opposite of socialism.  The individual mandate forces healthy people to pay for sick people.  That is socialism.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on July 04, 2012, 02:55:17 PM
When people have the option not to purchase health insurance, so when they get sick and can't afford to pay for it, but still get needed care, and as a result I pay higher insurance premiums, that's socialism.
When the individual mandate requires everyone to buy health insurance, so everyone pays their own medical costs and don't spread the burden on others, that's capitalism.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on July 04, 2012, 03:22:50 PM
Now, having explained myself, maybe you can explain yourself. What exactly are you trying to say?
Everyone seems to have a reason why Roberts did what he did. This article is no different. I enjoyed reading it as much as any other well reasoned speculative article. To me that is all it is, nothing more.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on July 04, 2012, 03:24:30 PM
When people have the option not to purchase health insurance, so when they get sick and can't afford to pay for it, but still get needed care, and as a result I pay higher insurance premiums, that's socialism.
No it's not
When the individual mandate requires everyone to buy health insurance, so everyone pays their own medical costs and don't spread the burden on others, that's capitalism.
No it's not

But in any event, that is not the effect of the individual mandate.  People who can afford to buy insurance have to pay for their medical care.  Hospitals are not required to provide free care to those who can afford it.  The ones who are driving up our premiums are illegals and those who are too poor to pay for insurance.  And guess what--those people are not subject to the individual mandate.  And the one's with high enough income to be subject to the mandate will still qualify for public insurance which is funded by taxpayers.

Under whose definition is this capitalism?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on July 04, 2012, 03:41:06 PM
You said "Hospitals are not
required to provide free care to
those who can afford it."
I don't have what to argue with you anymore.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: MarkS on July 04, 2012, 03:43:36 PM
Romney, in Shift, Says Health Care Mandate Is a Tax (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/romney-in-shift-says-health-care-mandate-is-a-tax/?hp)

Given his Massachusetts background, he needs to tread carefully in how he leverages this against Obama.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on July 04, 2012, 03:47:47 PM
I don't take his words as his opinion, he just said that if the court said it a tax than its a tax. Its more like 'obey the court'.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on July 04, 2012, 03:49:44 PM
You said "Hospitals are not
required to provide free care to
those who can afford it."
I don't have what to argue with you anymore.
I'm not sure what you mean but I think you misunderstood me.  By law, hospitals are not required to provide free care and therefore they don't.  When an uninsured who can afford to pay goes to the emergency room, he gets billed.  So those who are affected by the individual mandate, i.e. those who can afford insurance but choose not to purchase it, are not the ones who are driving up health costs.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on July 04, 2012, 03:56:30 PM
Very 'lomdiesh' but bad math: the one who can afford to pay $300-$400 a month for premiums, can't afford $40,000 once he get injured or a broken leg.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: MarkS on July 04, 2012, 03:58:39 PM
Someone on CNN had a good idea.

Don't buy health insurance, pay the 'tax' (a lot cheaper than insurance). If you get sick and need medical care, buy insurance then - they will need to take you even though you have pre-existing conditions!!!!
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on July 04, 2012, 04:00:05 PM
Very 'lomdiesh' but bad math: the one who can afford to pay $300-$400 a month for premiums, can't afford $40,000 once he get injured or a broken leg.
LOL! $40,000? It's more like $1500
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on July 04, 2012, 04:01:50 PM
Romney, in Shift, Says Health Care Mandate Is a Tax (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/romney-in-shift-says-health-care-mandate-is-a-tax/?hp)

Given his Massachusetts background, he needs to tread carefully in how he leverages this against Obama.
Finally he makes some sense:

“While I agreed with the dissent, that’s taken over by the fact that the majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore it is a tax. They have spoken.”
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: meshugener on July 04, 2012, 04:09:51 PM
@good Sam,
You got me by the word.
How about an appendix surgery and the follow-up care afterwards?
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on July 04, 2012, 04:24:00 PM
@good Sam,
You got me by the word.
How about an appendix surgery and the follow-up care afterwards?
It's nowhere near $40k but in any event I'll make my point another way:

Those who have income high enough to be within the mandate, who would otherwise get ER care for which they would not pay make up a tiny fraction of the overall amount of unpaid healthcare.  The lion's share is provided to illegal aliens and poor people, and both of these groups are not subject to the mandate.

SO -- the effect of the mandate is primarily to require young healthy people, who will likely not need healthcare and choose to play the odds (which, after all, are in their favor), to pay for the healthcare of illegals, poor people, and people with pre-existing conditions.  This amounts to taking from those who have, to give to those who do not have which is the very essence of socialism. 

Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: skyguy918 on July 04, 2012, 04:27:28 PM
Everyone seems to have a reason why Roberts did what he did. This article is no different. I enjoyed reading it as much as any other well reasoned speculative article. To me that is all it is, nothing more.

My point was never that the article's speculation as to Roberts' reasoning is any more true to the mark than other commentary out there. My point was that the article's speculation as to Roberts' reasoning represents a really cool bit of maneuvering, whether that's what's actually happening or not.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: HelpMe on July 04, 2012, 04:31:01 PM
My point was never that the article's speculation as to Roberts' reasoning is any more true to the mark than other commentary out there. My point was that the article's speculation as to Roberts' reasoning represents a really cool bit of maneuvering, whether that's what's actually happening or not.
I agree.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: skyguy918 on July 04, 2012, 04:34:54 PM
I agree.

And the other mind-blowing thing is the fact that in Marbury vs Madison it was understood that the POTUS would ignore the Supreme Court if they issued the writ. I guess things were different back then, when our country's institutions were still young and the balance of power not as clearly defined.
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on July 04, 2012, 04:59:01 PM
Until they raise the penalty...
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: Deal Guy on July 05, 2012, 12:31:49 AM
Until they raise the penalty...
...you mean TAX
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: Deal Guy on July 05, 2012, 12:40:23 AM
http://www.thelakewoodscoop.com/news/2012/07/a-special-july-4th-analysis-chief-justice-john-roberts-healthcare-ruling-a-profile-in-courage.html
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on July 05, 2012, 09:57:34 AM
http://www.thelakewoodscoop.com/news/2012/07/a-special-july-4th-analysis-chief-justice-john-roberts-healthcare-ruling-a-profile-in-courage.html
Thanks. I got real kick out of that  ;D
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: good sam on July 05, 2012, 11:42:36 PM
Rudy Giuliani weighed in on Obamacare in enemy territory.  Watch how he addresses the booing crowd

&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court
Post by: RJ898 on July 11, 2012, 05:44:24 PM
http://www.nrcc.org/default/sites/landingpages/timeline/index.html