Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bubba_Switzler said:
Or that they prefer to pay in cash OR that they will make do with what they can afford OR that they prefer to take the risk OR that others will cover their costs. There are a number of possibilities that you seem obvlious to.
Click to expand...
No, I’m not oblivious to anything, neither - happily - is the SC. Choosing to live in a civilized society means we cannot simply accept that a person must pay or suffer and die. If they refuse care fine, but the reality is that when illness strikes, most people regardless of prior ideology want to be helped.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
It is the wrong thing to force one person pay another. It is the right thing to encourage one person to be charitable toward another. Sadly, that distinction is lost on too many.
Click to expand...
Yup. And the personal charity is actually good spiritually for the giver and the receiver.

No merit in someone forcing me to give charity to an unseen person.
 
He_Man said:
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy of the numbers he posted. As sad aside, but not sure why you quoted him.
Click to expand...
Futher, what makes anybody think that unemployment is going to automatically result in free health care?
 
seekerz said:
No, I’m not oblivious to anything, neither - happily - is the SC. Choosing to live in a civilized society means we cannot simply accept that a person must pay or suffer and die. If they refuse care fine, but the reality is that when illness strikes, most people regardless of prior ideology want to be helped.
Click to expand...
Healthcare is always rationed in some form. Simple economics.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
Too bad that ObamaCare does not do what is necessary to actually fix the problems.
Click to expand...
Too bad that those who preceded him passed on the chance to “actually fix the problems”. At least he gets credit for getting off his…
 
Heavy_Cross said:
You won’t be paying much if you’re barely surviving. You probably won’t be paying anything at all if you are that broke.
Click to expand...
HC, you will technically get “coverage”, but you will wait in unimaginable lines. My dad and MIL both needed bypasses, and received theirs immediately. Nowhere else in the world would they have been saved. Rapid response will soon be regarded as part of the good old days. BTW,I sympathize with your problem, but layers of bureaucracy and 16000 IRS agents are not the cure. This, and thousands more issues would have been brought up in hearings. That’s why there were no hearings, just a thuggish fiat. It’s time Americans all saw through this imperial Obama-scam. ROB
 
Bubba Switzler
It is the wrong thing to force one person pay another.
Click to expand...
And that’s what happens when an uninsured person shows up in the ER with the flu, and it cost us $800 to treat him, where if he had insurance, he could’ve just gone to his doctor.

Since Romney Care has been well in effect here, our ER’s are no longer packed with people looking to be treated with common illnesses.

Also, having health insurance, people are getting annual checkups and being treated for high-blood pressure, diabetes and such, before they end up in an emergency situation where they have to be taken by ambulance to an ER. The cost for that alone is equivalent to a couple years of premiums of health insurance.

Jim
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
Yup. And the personal charity is actually good spiritually for the giver and the receiver.

No merit in someone forcing me to give charity to an unseen person.
Click to expand...
How many people would give freely? Enough to sustain the poor. We have to petition the government since it’s the only force available for great social change. All the Catholics in the world could not afford the burden.
 
Really folks need to settle down. Roberts has always supported expansion of government and has rarely allied himself with those who oppose its expansion. Hope was he might uphold the true meaning of the commerce clause, but if he did, it would mean the unraveling of the statist and totalitarian government the US is becoming. So be it, welcome to modernity.
Americans went from freemen to surfs thanks to the legal eagles on the SC. Call it a tax and Americans have to do what they are told by their congressional masters. That is what Roberts is saying and exactly what the fist court of appeals ruled. Are you really surprised?
 
RACJ said:
HC, you will technically get “coverage”, but you will wait in unimaginable lines. My dad and MIL both needed bypasses, and received theirs immediately. Nowhere else in the world would they have been saved. Rapid response will soon be regarded as part of the good old days. BTW,I sympathize with your problem, but layers of bureaucracy and 16000 IRS agents are not the cure. This, and thousands more issues would have been brought up in hearings. That’s why there were no hearings, just a thuggish fiat. It’s time Americans all saw through this imperial Obama-scam. ROB
Click to expand...
Still better then NOTHING
 
seekerz said:
No, I’m not oblivious to anything, neither - happily - is the SC. Choosing to live in a civilized society means we cannot simply accept that a person must pay or suffer and die. If they refuse care fine, but the reality is that when illness strikes, most people regardless of prior ideology want to be helped.
Click to expand...
The SC did not rule on whether Obamacare advanced or impeded a just society. It ruled on whether it was unconstitutional and found, by 5-4, that the penalty could be treated as a tax.

Whether socialism is civilized it is certainly not just.

Most people, regardless of their ideology, recognize the difference between charity and coercion.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Bubba Switzler

And that’s what happens when an uninsured person shows up in the ER with the flu, and it cost us $800 to treat him, where if he had insurance, he could’ve just gone to his doctor.

Since Romney Care has been well in effect here, our ER’s are no longer packed with people looking to be treated with common illnesses.

Also, having health insurance, people are getting annual checkups and being treated for high-blood pressure, diabetes and such, before they end up in an emergency situation where they have to be taken by ambulance to an ER. The cost for that alone is equivalent to a couple years of premiums of health insurance.

Jim
Click to expand...
How about people pay out of pocket for annual checkups and only get coverage for catastrophic things?

One of the reasons health care is so complicated and expensive is that we expect a 3rd party to pay for every time we go to the doctor (or worse, the ER) with the sniffles.
 
seekerz said:
I agree. Glad you acknowledge that. However, we can have more to ration if prices are forced downward and that’s what a bigger pool does.
Click to expand...
Where is the more going to come from? Government going to next tell Doctors and nurses what they are going to earn?
 
RACJ said:
They will tell you NO, but the answer is YES. However, they will soon discover that this mindless drivel on parchment, which is contemptuous of our individual rights, will cause the total collapse of our great medical system that most of us have always taken for granted. ROB
Click to expand...
It is not just those points. The actual law was found unconstitutional as it stood. It took creative legislating by Justice Roberts to turn a mandate into a tax. So, the left has told many lies and created many deceptions to get their tax, and the SC most definitely just legislated from the bench.

Every single American should be concerned that a Chief Justice ignored what the law said, and instead told us what the law will now say and mean. If the law was allowed to stand on its own merirs–the entire thing would have been tossed.

The ends justifies the means for many–I suppose. 😦
 
He_Man said:
Door 1 - If the fine is a penalty, it is illegal.

Door 2 - If it is a tax, it is a tax increase.

Pick a door.
Click to expand...
The federal $2/pack tax on cigarets has been found Constitutional. Is it really a tax, or a penalty for smoking, or a mandate to quit?
Pick a door.

As for Justice Roberts being a turncoat, how about the possibility that his ruling reflects his own honest opinion (or as much as he could get four more Justices to agree to)?
Or that by upholding the ACA on such narrow grounds he has basically returned the issue to Congress. The biggest victory for the Constitution is that the ruling holds ACA cannot be justified on Commerce Clause nor Necessary & Proper grounds.

I’m also wondering, given the wrath Obama and his minions were ready to unleash on the Court if ACA were overturned, was Justice Roberts’ ruling a “switch in time that saved nine”? Sort of a “here’s your hollow victory, enjoy it”. I wonder if our Constitutional- scholar president appreciates the irony.
 
Nope… we are above the cutoff by a few thousand ( Net income… like 8k gross ). It depends on how much overtime is worked that year etc.
Heavy_Cross said:
You won’t be paying much if you’re barely surviving. You probably won’t be paying anything at all if you are that broke.
Click to expand...
 
I’m wondering that myself actually.
didymus said:
I’m also wondering, given the wrath Obama and his minions were ready to unleash on the Court if ACA were overturned, was Justice Roberts’ ruling a “switch in time that saved nine”? Sort of a “here’s your hollow victory, enjoy it”. I wonder if our Constitutional- scholar president appreciates the irony.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top