Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

[He_Man]

The Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care is a victory for the people. It will be a stepping stone in attaining Universal Health Care.

This is just liberal fantasy talk. Iits defeat may have made this more likely. How is this going to lead to even more sweeping legislation, especially with Congress having seen a conservative shift.

Please explain how this will make a new bill (assuming that is what you mean) more likely?

Unless you are saying upholding Obamacare makes Obamacare more likely, which makes no sense to even post.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

What does that have to do with charitable organizations being unable to foot the medical bills of uninsured people? We aren’t talking fancy cars or houses for the poor - we’re talking basic medical care that could be way, way cheaper than it presently is. The only question is whether we as a society care enough to make things right. That’s really all it amounts to. The rest is just static.

Not surprisingly you speak out of both sides of your mouth. In one paragraph you assert that we don’t care enbough about the poor to make things right and then assert that by state coercion we will correct this and make things right.

The only question is whether we can ever achieve a just society when so many are willing to reach for the expedience of power over charity.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Hospital stocks jump after health care ruling

hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/f70471f764144b2fab526d39972d37b3/Article_2012-06-28-Supreme%20Court-Health%20Care-Market%20Reaction/id-fafde23cb1dc4ab0b770822f28621182
Key Quotes from Today’s Decision that Signal the Court’s Willingness to Strike Down the HHS Mandate

…and from Justice Ginsburg no less

Today’s decision and the Becket Fund’s challenges to the HHS mandate are completely separate and distinct legal issues. But did the Supreme Court say anything that is relevant to the HHS mandate? Yes. Two key quotes signal that the Court may be willing to strike down the HHS mandate as a violation of religious liberty.

The first, from the majority opinion, states: “Even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply with other requirements in the Constitution

.” In other words, Congress may have authority to penalize organizations that refuse to comply with its mandates; but any penalty will be struck down if it violates “other requirements in the Constitution,” such as the First Amendment—which is just what the HHS mandate does. (The Chief’s quote is in his majority op Part III-C which was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. p 40)

The second quote, from Justice Ginsburg’s opinion, is even more clear: “A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.” Again, that is just what the HHS mandate does: It “interfere with the free exercise of religion” by forcing religious organizations across the country to violate their religious beliefs.(SC Opinion Part II which was joined by Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. p 29)

Thus, today’s Supreme Court decision makes clear that ObamaCare is still subject to legal challenge. Indeed, if anything, it suggests that the Supreme Court is willing to entertain arguments that the HHS mandate violates the right of religious liberty.

becketfund.org/key-quotes-from-today-decision-that-signal-the-courts-willingness-to-strike-down-the-hhs-mandate

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

The Supreme court just ratified the enabling act of 1933.

There are no more limits to the coercive power of the federal government now that the power to tax can now compel you to an action, exercised as HHS has already shown us by simple regulatory fiat!

As Joseph Goebbels wrote shortly after the passage of the Enabling Act:
The authority of the Führer has now been wholly established. Votes are no longer taken. The Führer decides. All this is going much faster than we had dared to hope.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

All for the good of the common man, of course, of course!

 

[jay29]

The Right Wing in this country has been whipped up into a white heat. November 2012 could be another 2010 all over and more significant. It wouldn’t surprise me if it costs Obama the White House in the end.

 

[scipio337]

Italy has single payer.

1. My uncle died waiting years for expensive therapy
2. At least there, if you have money, you can opt out of the state system.

I always assumed you were Irish.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Not surprisingly you speak out of both sides of your mouth. In one paragraph you assert that we don’t care enbough about the poor to make things right and then assert that by state coercion we will correct this and make things right.

The only question is whether we can ever achieve a just society when so many are willing to reach for the expedience of power over charity.

In any event, they are do-gooding with money that has not even been printed yet. They are do-gooding with their children’s futures.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I always assumed you were Irish.

I though everybody was

100% Italian American

 

[Personanongrata]

Romney will repeal ObamaCare

Hee Hee, Mitt will say anything to get elected. I love listening to him!!! He has no core convictions!!!

 

[He_Man]

I always assumed you were Irish.

LUIGI Daniele, not O’Shaugnessy Daniele.

 

[seekerz]

Not surprisingly you speak out of both sides of your mouth. In one paragraph you assert that we don’t care enbough about the poor to make things right and then assert that by state coercion we will correct this and make things right.

Correction: you are trying to speak out of both sides of my mouth. I, on the other hand, allow you the courtesy of speaking for yourself.

The only question is whether we can ever achieve a just society when so many are willing to reach for the expedience of power over charity.

Where was charity when people were suffering from lack of care or getting bankrupted trying to access it? And don’t tell me they were forced out from providing free care by the government, unless you have the historical evidence to counter mine…

Seriously, Christians fighting over their ‘right’ to give charitably instead of to be taxed! THAT, THAT is more important a topic than the real needs of real people who suffer?

Methinks some people need a walk back in the corridors of history, when Church and State were not separate and authorities demanded both tax and charity. No, “I’ll decide what/when/where I’ll give” _ _ _ _ ! Nothing a time machine and two doses of medieval Christianity can’t fix…

 

[jay29]

Wait until Obama starts taxing 401Ks to help pay for things like this.

 

[He_Man]

Romney will repeal ObamaCare

Hee Hee, Mitt will say anything to get elected. I love listening to him!!! He has no core convictions!!!

1. If it motivates the voters to put him in office, it doesn;t really matter does it in the end? I tend to believe him, but all he needs is more votes.
2. Who do you think is more fired up over the decision - the supporters, or those against?
3. If Obama loses, and this would have to play major role, would it have been worth it to him? His presidency over this bill?

 

[mary_bobo]

QUOTE=Personanongrata;9462385]Romney will repeal ObamaCare

Hee Hee, Mitt will say anything to get elected. I love listening to him!!! He has no core convictions!!!

:yawn:

 

[Dawnia]

Factcheck.org refuted the above chart a while ago.

Which chart?

 

[mary_bobo]

Wait until Obama starts taxing 401Ks to help pay for things like this.

And how about the tax when you sell your home? Can’t wait to see what else they tax to pay for this.

 

[jay29]

I don’t want the government deciding how to be “charitable” with my money. Some people think supporting abortion with tax dollars is charitable. Government charity is not charity.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

1. If Obama loses, and this would have to play major role, would it have been worth it to him? His presidency over this bill?

It’d be worth it to me.

 

[He_Man]

And how about the tax when you sell your home? Can’t wait to see what else they tax to pay for this.

It would be a tax for NOT selling you home, per precedent.

 

[Seeker1961]

It’s not about what the “fired up” people on either side think. It’s about what the people think who are busy watching reality TV. They are the ones who will decide, not the rabid base of either side.