Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A thought about the institution of the Supreme Court. As another poster remarked, the liberal judges would never have sided with those opposed to the Obama mandate, and I agree with that. I would add that, although Chief Justice Roberts was the swing vote in this case, it is rare that the hard-core conservative judges break ranks either. Of all our institutions, shouldn’t the Supreme Court somehow be above partisan politics? I understand the Chief Justice may attempt to set a more bipartisan tone, but why can’t all the judges on the Court be selected on the basis of their bipartisan record?
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Obama care isn’t universal health care. It’s affordable health care legislation which regulates the health insurance industry and mandates that everyone have, health insurance, whether through private insurers, the military or other means.
Click to expand...
In other words, no, it doesn’t solve the problem of access to health care. As you’ve already conceded, you expect Obamacare to fail at which point you will demand more socializaton of the health care industry. I’m sorry to have to be the one to call you out on this.
Charity will not pay for people to receive health care.
Click to expand...
Charity already does pay for people to receive health. Are you actually unfamiliar with this?
They’re not free. Those of us with health insurance, pay higher premiums and taxes, to help pay for those who don’t have health insurance.
Click to expand...
That is one source among many. But this is so by government edict.

If you want to punish those who take from you don’t turn around and solve it by enabling more taking and an even larger level.
Lack of government regulation caused the collapse in the encomoy 2007-2008, please don’t go there.
Click to expand...
Funny that you bring up a subject and then pretend not to want to “go there”. I don’t doubt that you believe lack of regulation causes recessions, oops, economics collapse, but the Soviet Union collapsed spectacularly and it was the most regulated society on earth.
Lust for power is why the founding fathers put checks and balances in place.
Click to expand...
Sadly, these checks and balances are beging eroded by decisions such as that today.
Sorry you don’t like the result of one of those checks and balances which was BTW, made by Justice Roberts, a conservative, Catholic, court appointee of George W. Bush.
Click to expand...
Sorry you don’t like it when I criticize decisions on the substance instead of judging by who appointed whom.
 
meltzerboy said:
A thought about the institution of the Supreme Court. As another poster remarked, the liberal judges would never have sided with those opposed to the Obama mandate, and I agree with that. I would add that, although Chief Justice Roberts was the swing vote in this case, it is rare that the hard-core conservative judges break ranks either. Of all our institutions, shouldn’t the Supreme Court somehow be above partisan politics? I understand the Chief Justice may attempt to set a more bipartisan tone, but why can’t all the judges on the Court be selected on the basis of their bipartisan record?
Click to expand...
Because bipartisanship always means the conservatives caving.
 
Lokabrenna said:
What I find amusing about this whole debate is the number of people who claim they’re moving to Canada over this ruling.

I think some of them might even be serious about it.
Click to expand...
I sure won’t be one of them. But I most definitely am taking a closer look at deductions that I might be able to generate. If I’m going to get taxed in one way, then it behooves me to reduce it in another way. …all legal, of course. But some of the deductions really are remarkable if one wants to use them. And I’m reasonably sure I won’t be the only one doing it.

When the government is so determined to tax more and more for repugnant ideological purposes, then “paying one’s fair share” makes less and less sense.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I sure won’t be one of them. But I most definitely am taking a closer look at deductions that I might be able to generate. If I’m going to get taxed in one way, then it behooves me to reduce it in another way. …all legal, of course. But some of the deductions really are remarkable if one wants to use them. And I’m reasonably sure I won’t be the only one doing it.

When the government is so determined to tax more and more for repugnant ideological purposes, then “paying one’s fair share” makes less and less sense.
Click to expand...
When you have time, please PM me the examples. 🙂
 
meltzerboy said:
A thought about the institution of the Supreme Court. As another poster remarked, the liberal judges would never have sided with those opposed to the Obama mandate, and I agree with that. I would add that, although Chief Justice Roberts was the swing vote in this case, it is rare that the hard-core conservative judges break ranks either. Of all our institutions, shouldn’t the Supreme Court somehow be above partisan politics? I understand the Chief Justice may attempt to set a more bipartisan tone, but why can’t all the judges on the Court be selected on the basis of their bipartisan record?
Click to expand...
There is no such thing anymore. The country is so sharply divided that there is nobody who is bipartisan. Compromise is evil, nobody from Party X can ever admit that there is anything good about anyone on Party Y. Getting to appoint a Justice that adheres to the party line is the perk of winning the election, read some of the comments here about Romney winning and getting to appoint 2 justices that will do things his way.
 
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...
This statement doesn’t explain how it’s “lust for Power” and greed…?
 
irishpatrick said:
You are fine with this? The left told us it was not a tax, over and over and over–yet now Roberts gives blanket permission to make a new tax, and you are fine with that?

When, exactly, does taxation become too much? 50%, 70% 90%?
Click to expand...
Yes, I am fine with it. I pay taxes all the time that support things I don’t agree with. At least this tax is going toward something I believe in.
 
sharmin said:
This statement doesn’t explain how it’s “lust for Power” and greed…?
Click to expand...
If you seize power on the pretense of solving a problem and then seize more power when the solution fails then it is reasonable to conclude that these power grabs are not actually aimed at solving problems but at seizing power.

That is the history of liberalism of which Obamacare is merely the most recent example.

Many Obamacare supporters in this thread have already conceded that it will not work and that they are really after the next power grab that they belive will follow.
 
Amen… and thank you.
_Abyssinia said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
sharmin said:
Yes, but without this “tax” it was costing everybody. This lessons the burden on everyone else.
Click to expand...
How? The hospitals still are required to provide emergency care. Are you saying the hospital will be able to “charge back” against the tax? That’s news to me. Not to mention that there are many who use the ER as their only form of health care that aren’t going to be taxed because they aren’t eligible for Obamacare (undocumented immigrants, for example).
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
If you seize power on the pretense of solving a problem and then seize more power when the solution fails then it is reasonable to conclude that these power grabs are not actually aimed at solving problems but at seizing power.

That is the history of liberalism of which Obamacare is merely the most recent example.

Many Obamacare supporters in this thread have already conceded that it will not work and that they are really after the next power grab that they belive will follow.
Click to expand...
Seriously, is it really such a tragedy that some people who were uninsured will now be? Not to mention that the inexorable rising of health care costs will be stemmed?

Where I live, Medicare/Medicaid pays $200 or less for services that private insurance pay $500-$700 for and that uninsured individuals pay $1000-$2000 for. Please, please, explain to me how government taking steps to address those disparities is a tragedy?

I guess unless you’re actually sick and unable to meet health costs, it really is all about power, money and politics…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top