Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
_Abyssinia said:
ObamaCare is one-size-fits-all. RomneyCare was created for Massachusetts and Romney has said there are things he would change. RomneyCare did not raise taxes, ObamaCare raises taxes by $500 billion.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand where that figure is coming from. If people buy health insurance it won’t raise taxes at all.
 
irishpatrick said:
That was Robert’s way of spinning it to where he wanted it to go–it was not in the law. The only thing in the law was a mandate, not a tax–the word tax (if I recall correctly) is not mentioned.
Click to expand...
It is referred to as a penalty and what kind of “penalty” is it? A tax. It is not just the job of the Supreme Court to read the law; it is their job to interpret the language used in the law and Roberts’ interpretation is sound. You can call a tax a asdnwklanuo but at the end of the day it is still a tax.
 
sharmin said:
Wanting healthcare for everyone means you have a lust for power and a lack of charity?
Click to expand...
  1. Obmacare will not provide healthcare for everyone. When it fails those who support it will demand more government power. That is a lust for power and a lack of charity.
  2. A just means to a just end would entail charity, not government.
A little dramatic, and a lot incorrect. It almost sounds judgemental, but I’m hoping you didn’t mean it that way.
Click to expand...
Now you know.
I am in support of MOST of Obamacare. I am NOT in support of churches being mandated to pay for abortions or birthcontrol. Everything else I am in support of. I believe today was a good day. The only I have to add about this tax is that people should have the ability to “opt out” but in doing so they would have to sign something stating that they would NEVER utilize the ER or any ER services for them or their families without payment upfront. I think if that were the case, many people (at the thought of protecting their families) would opt to pay the tax. Why should ANYONE utilize ER services if they aren’t doing their share to pay for it??
Click to expand...
Why are ER services free in the first place? Government regulation. As is so often the case, you are seeking a government solution to a government problem. Every government failure become a justification of more government.

That is, if not a lust for power, a predilication for the expedience of power and the appearance of justice over reality.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
We need 51 seats in the Senate. We don’t even need the White House. And the Senate cannot filibuster a reconcilliation vote.
Click to expand...
True except the President must sign and the House has to pass it. Some House rules demand a 2/3 rds vote without amendments so I don’t know how this would play out.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
Are you for groceries for everyone? Nutrition is, after all, one of the most important producers of good health.

Free clothes for the same reason?

Free automobiles (after all, how do you get to a rural doctor without a car)?
Click to expand...
Difference is a trip to the grocery store may cost $100, a trip to the hospital may cost $10,000…or $100,000.
 
Justice Roberts rewrote the law right on the bench.

This will galvanize the republicans as the biggest tax increase in US history during the worst recession ever. Good luck with the job numbers.

The republicans will be white hot when the pull the lever in November.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
It is referred to as a penalty and what kind of penalty is it? A tax penalty. It is not just the job of the Supreme Court to read the law; it is their job to interpret the language used in the law.
Click to expand...
Roberts himself stated that state cannot compel people to buy the insurance–yet it can be procurred anyway through a tax that was NEVER placed in the bill.

Seriously, there has to be new code created for what Robert’s did–new tax code, that was never requested by the legislative branch.

Robert’s job was to rule on the consitutionality of the law (which he did deem unconstiutional). He seemed to have a strong desire to find a way to approve the law despite his own statements that the law itself is unconstitutional, so he invented the tax on behalf of the law’s creators. Congressional Democrats had to just LOVE Robert’s writing law for them.

BTW, there would be nothing wrong with Robert’s kicking the entire law back to Congress by telling them as it stands the law is unconstitutional, but if Congress changed the mandate to a tax, then it would be constitutional–THAT is in the authority of the SC.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
  1. Obmacare will not provide healthcare for everyone. When it fails those who support it will demand more government power. That is a lust for power and a lack of charity.
  2. A just means to a just end would entail charity, not government.
Now you know.

Why are ER services free in the first place? Government regulation. As is so often the case, you are seeking a government solution to a government problem. Every government failure become a justification of more government.

That is, if not a lust for power, a predilication for the expedience of power and the appearance of justice over reality.
Click to expand...
Here’s a question for ya? Guess who made ER services “free”?

That’s right. The big commie liberal Ronald Reagan.
 
poker10 said:
Difference is a trip to the grocery store may cost $100, a trip to the hospital may cost $10,000…or $100,000.
Click to expand...
But most people don’t go to the hospital every day–they do eat every day, so it amounts (on average) to much more money.

Free groceries for everyone!
 
irishpatrick said:
Roberts himself stated that state cannot compel people to buy the insurance–yet it can be procurred anyway through a tax that was NEVER placed in the bill.
Click to expand...
Paying the tax does not constitute an automatic enrollment in a health insurance program. Having insurance merely constitutes a tax exempt status.
irishpatrick said:
Seriously, there has to be new code created for what Robert’s did–new tax code, that was never requested by the legislative branch.
Click to expand...
The law itself specifies the tax code which this falls under and it is mentioned several times in the decision.
irishpatrick said:
BTW, there would be nothing wrong with Robert’s kicking the entire law back to Congress by telling them as it stands the law is unconstitutional, but if Congress changed the mandate to a tax, then it would be constitutional–THAT is in the authority of the SC.
Click to expand...
As Roberts pointed out; the Supreme Court has never proceeded that way. Supreme Court precedent states that if the provision in question can be reasonably interpreted to be Constitutional then it must be upheld.
 
Those who made the right decisions in life will pay for those that didn’t.
 
catholicanne said:
Feeling depressed. We don’t qualify for the free coverage because my husband makes $4000 over the cut-off. I just looked up what insurance would cost us. $350 a month plus a $10,000 deductible and we have to pay for all office visits. 😦 It would be cheaper to pay the $4000 fine at the end of the year.

How exactly is this new law supposed to help us?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but helping people was not what this law was all about. Extending federal control and enslavement was the law’s purpose.

It was a massive success.

Again, sorry.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Existing Supreme Court precedent states that all challenged laws must be upheld if there is a Constitutional meaning to its provisions. As he points out; the so-called mandate can be interpreted in two different ways. The first is that it requires the people to engage in commerce which would be unconstitutional. The second is that it encourages the people to purchase health insurance and levies a tax against those who choose not to, which is constitutional.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard of this sort of “encouragement” before, but I can’t place it exactly. Was it on the Sopranos or The Godfather?
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
But most people don’t go to the hospital every day–they do eat every day, so it amounts (on average) to much more money.

Free groceries for everyone!
Click to expand...
Exactly. Food is affordable spread over 80 years. Health care is not even in the short term.
 
catholicanne said:
My husband makes $26,000 a year and he’s the sole breadwinner. It’s just the two of us right now and we’re barely keeping our head above water. We’re going to have to buy health insurance because he makes a few grand above the cut-off. 😦

Today sucks. I pray that America wakes up and elects conservatives this November so this travesty of a law can be repealed.
Click to expand...
That means if you can’t afford to buy health insurance, you will have to pay a tax at tax time of $650. If you get a refund currently, it will be deducted off that. Not too bad considering if you or your children need to go to the ER for anything, they have to treat you.
 
sharmin said:
That means if you can’t afford to buy health insurance, you will have to pay a tax at tax time of $650. If you get a refund currently, it will be deducted off that. Not too bad considering if you or your children need to go to the ER for anything, they have to treat you.
Click to expand...
They already have to treat patients,so what:shrug:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top