Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seeker1961 said:
I’m going with the National Right to Life’s data and they show 2008-2011 as flat-no increase, no decrease. I would assume that they would have been following such things rather closely.
Click to expand...
And how do you know it has nothing to do with 80 plus pro life was begin enacted which lower the abortion rate?
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
He didn’t legislate from the bench and the taxation argument is explained in the decision. Playing semantics over what to call it does not change the fundamental nature of what it actually is and what it is, is a tax. A percentage based on income and paid to the IRS under existing tax code regulations.
Click to expand...
It can’t be a tax. Obama said it wasn’t several times.😉
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
He didn’t legislate from the bench and the taxation argument is explained in the decision. Playing semantics over what to call it does not change the fundamental nature of what it actually is and what it is, is a tax. A percentage based on income and paid to the IRS under existing tax code regulations.
Click to expand...
Right, yet the law specifies a mandate and not a tax–Roberts changed it to tax. Where does he get the constitutional authority to do that?
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
States have the right to experiment with socialized medicine under federalism. The federal goverment does not (or should not). Abortions will drop by x on day 1 of a Romney administration. That alone should tell you how to vote.
Click to expand...
As Governor, Romney was pro-abortion. He’s not going to change all of a sudden if he’s in a different executive position. I’m not trusting his words that he says now when his actions in the past were different.
 
JRRTFAN said:
I think Obamacare is an abomination but, eventually, we will end up with a single payer system and, essentially, completely socialized medicine. We can cry about it and worry about it, but it’s coming, just like homosexual “marriage” is coming.

As to funding, the only equitable way I can see is a tax on something everybody uses or consumes. Say a 10% federal sales tax on food. Then everybody pays to play and the guy who goes to the ER for a sore toe can go to his doc because he’s got insurance, ultimately insurance costs (not provider costs) are lower because everybody is funding.

They have a nice deal like this in Austria. You pay a social service fee of 46% off the top of every Euro of income (you pay income tax on what’s left). I think that’s a dandy deal, that’s why Austria is the world leader in schnitzel and not much else.
Click to expand...
That is defeatist. I believe ObamaCare can and will be repealed.
 
Seeker1961 said:
As I said in the part you chose NOT to include, I do NOT believe that Romney is in any way a sure bet to repeal or even change this law. As such, I am concerned that much of that money may be wasted-and that would “vex” me when there are so many better uses for it. We have an empty food pantry at our church that needs filling.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, then, the problem is with your comprehension of what I wrote: What I wrote was that Romeny is now the only hope of stopping the drift to socialism. Whether or not Romeny will stop the drift to socialism is something that only the future can tell. But now that the SC has opted not to turn overturn Obamacare, those who oppose socialism have not choice but to put their faitin in Romney to act on his promises. Hence the sudden upsurge in both cash and interest in his candidacy.

By the way, if anyone is interested in understanding why Obamacare is doomed to fail, here is a relatively simple explanation:

nationalreview.com/corner/304368/obamacare-play-or-pay-james-c-capretta

Whether or not it was designed to fail, to be replaced by an even heavier government hand in socialized health care, is a question for historians to ponder.
 
irishpatrick said:
*“The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. . . . The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. . . . Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and — under the government’s theory — empower Congress to make those decisions for him.” *
Click to expand...
Thanks, but I don’t see anything about “directly linked transactions.”
 
BobCatholic said:
As Governor, Romney was pro-abortion. He’s not going to change all of a sudden if he’s in a different executive position. I’m not trusting his words that he says now when his actions in the past were different.
Click to expand...
Romney had a pro life record as governor, and that is why many pro life groups have endorsed him. Romney used to be pro abortion, so was Ronald Reagan, Norma McCorvey - Jane ‘roe’ of roe vs wade, former abortionist Bernard Nathanson, former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson who is also a Catholic convert.

Many people used to be pro abortion and they changed their position to being pro life.
 
Heavy_Cross said:
Just saying, both sides are not above using profanity.
Click to expand...
So, basically you are saying “well, they do it!” Very adult of you. 😛

BTW…Rush Limbaugh is a talk show host, not an RNC official of any sort. I don’t think he has ever worked for an administration either.
 
Senate GOP Will Use Reconciliation in Attempt to Repeal Obamacare
Reconciliation was used to push Obamacare through the Senate in 2009. Generally reserved strictly for budget-related measures, it eliminates the possibility of a filibuster, meaning Republicans would only need 51 votes to repeal that portion of the law – or even the full law itself.
Click to expand...
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) seemed open to that approach during a speech at The Heritage Foundation shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its decision. The court’s ruling “does present some options for us” to pursue more unconventional options for repeal, DeMint said. He mentioned reconciliation as a potential avenue.
Click to expand...
A senior Senate Republican aide involved in the repeal effort later confirmed to Scribe that the GOP will use the budget reconciliation process in an attempt to repeal the full law, not just the portion requiring all Americans purchase health insurance.
Click to expand...
While a repeal effort via reconciliation would only require a majority of senators to pass, Republicans will likely wait until next year to employ the tactic.
Click to expand...
blog.heritage.org/2012/06/28/senate-gop-will-use-reconciliation-in-attempt-to-repeal-obamacare

Does the article mean Republicans wait until Romney would be president?
 
BobCatholic said:
As Governor, Romney was pro-abortion. He’s not going to change all of a sudden if he’s in a different executive position. I’m not trusting his words that he says now when his actions in the past were different.
Click to expand...
He did not sign a single pro-abort law.

Let me get this straight, it’s OK to “evolve” on this issue only if it’s in the right way?

ie,

Gore: pro-life to pro-abort=good

Romney: pro-abort to pro-life=not good?

Aside: how you can go from believing a fetus is a human life to being pro-abortion means not that you went from pro-life to pro-abortion, but that you went from pro-life to pro-infanticide.
 
rlg94086 said:
So, basically you are saying “well, they do it!” Very adult of you. 😛

BTW…Rush Limbaugh is a talk show host, not an RNC official of any sort. I don’t think he has ever worked for an administration either.
Click to expand...
That was not my intent. I do not believe in using profanity nor do I like being called a child.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
Romney Care was done at a state level and didn’t have to deal with US Constitutional issues.

However Romeny does at least have experience with this sort of thing.
Click to expand...
And the US Constitutional Issues have been settled today by the SCOTUS.

If Romney gets elected, watch him modify Obama Care in that he’ll allow the states to set up a Romney Care type plan of their own, like Massachusetts has.

Either way, it’s Obama Care that will have made it happen.

After that, watch, because slowly but surely, the health care industry will continue to raise their prices, and the insurance companies will raise their premiums, for keep in mind, these are for profit industries and they must make more money every quarter, not just break even.

Eventually, the entire thing will begin to break and the cost will be so expensive, Americans won’t be able to afford it.

Then perhaps, congress will create a single payer universal system.

Jim
 
rlg94086 said:
It would be helpful if you provided the quote of Roberts, so we can see exactly what you are referring to.
Click to expand...
“The Government regards it as sufficient to trigger Congress’s authority that almost all those who are uninsured will, at some unknown point in the future, engage in a health care transaction. Asserting that “[t]here is no temporal limitation in the Commerce Clause,” the Gov- ernment argues that because “[e]veryone subject to this regulation is in or will be in the health care market,” they can be “regulated in advance.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 109 (Mar. 27, 2012).The proposition that Congress may dictate the conduct of an individual today because of prophesied future activity finds no support in our precedent. We have said that Congress can anticipate the effects on commerce of an economic activity. But we have never permitted Congress to anticipate that activity itself in order to regulate individuals not currently engaged in commerce.”
 
Seeker1961 said:
True…so take the gamble. I’m just very aware that it is a gamble and I’m not sure I like the odds.
Click to expand...
But the other way isn’t a gamble, as Obama is pro-abortion.

So definite pro-abortion vs “possible” pro-lifer. Seems like an easy choice to me 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top