Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

[rlg94086]

That was not my intent. I do not believe in using profanity nor do I like being called a child.

Then, don’t respond like one.

Rather than “tell that to your pal, Rush Limbaugh,” you could have simply said. “I do not believe in using profanity, and, unfortunately, individuals from both sides do it.” That would be the adult response.

 

[irishpatrick]

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

Yes, which is why the Democrats have used outright lies and deception throughout this process. They have single payer in mind and have all along–that is their end game to have the state take complete control of health care for every breathing USA citizen, and Roberts just gave it to them.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Yes, which is why the Democrats have used outright lies and deception throughout this process. They have single payer in mind and have all along–that is their end game to have the state take complete control of health care for every breathing USA citizen, and Roberts just gave it to them.

Temporarily

 

[Heavy_Cross]

Then, don’t respond like one.

Rather than “tell that to your pal, Rush Limbaugh,” you could have simply said. “I do not believe in using profanity, and, unfortunately, individuals from both sides do it.” That would be the adult response.

Stop trying to bait me instead of sticking with the topic. I bet you wouldn’t call me a child to my face…

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

And the US Constitutional Issues have been settled today by the SCOTUS.

Just as SCOTUS resolved the constitutional issues in Dred Scott and Roe.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

EDIT.

 

[Seeker1961]

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.

I get that you dislike this president, but please dislike this president with facts.

And before you accuse me of being an apologist for this president, I fought just as hard during the last administration to get people to dislike that president with facts.

You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. (btw-the National Review piece is also someone’s opinion)

The plan as it stands this day was based on the GOP answer to Hillary Clinton in 1993-1994 and on RomneyCare. Unless you’re willing to accuse them all of being socialists as well it’s long past time to back off that term.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

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?

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.

 

[irishpatrick]

Temporarily

We can hope and pray you are correct.

Honestly, I do not care about the health care issue as much as I do about liberty and religious freedoms being lessened. To me, the most precious gift we have is being able to worship freely, and I see that taking possible hits along this wrong. Just look at the HHS mandate (they sure like that word “mandate”).

I do care about people who need medical care and cannot afford to pay, as Christians we MUST care. Yet, the left wants to build a world in which everyone is treated 100% equally–and that just means Churches will cease to exist as they are today if that were to happen.

 

[ProVobis]

Let me mourn the death of America as a free republic.

However, John Roberts may have tossed the Republicans a bone. All they have to do now is win majority control of the Senate in November and they can repeal Obamacare by reconcilliation without needing Presidential signature. By declaring Obamacare a tax, he made Obama a liar of the first order AND gave the mechanism to repeal this horrific law in the same way it was passed, by a trick of Senate procedure.

Partly true. Only government budgetary items can be reconciled. (And I understand this can only be done once in the Senate during a Congressional term.) The bill itself was passed with the supermajority; budgetary items were “fixed” later with the House approving both the bill and reconciliation measures.

But that still would be good, IMO. Tax can be set at 0%, funding reduced, etc. The only problem is the next Senate could overturn that and we can keep playing the see-saw game like we do with Mexican abortions.

 

[rlg94086]

"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 eco- nomic activity. But we have never permitted Congress to anticipate that activity itself in order **to regulate individuals not currently engaged in commerce." ***

Still not seeing anything about “directly linked transactions.” Since someone buying is engaged in commerce when they aquire a car, I don’t see how this is the same thing.

In order to drive a car on the road, you are required to have working headlamps at night and turn signals. Are such requirements forcing someone to buy bulbs? Requiring a driver to have car insurance is no different.

Now, requiring someone to buy health insurance because they are a breathing human being? Definitiely a different situation.

 

[irishpatrick]

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.

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.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Romney has now raised $2.5 million, 24000 donors since Supreme Court decision

twitter.com/andreamsaul/status/218471005151174656

 

[sharmin]

I will say a prayer for those who believe that the end justifies the means. May God forgive their lust for power and lack of charity.

Wanting healthcare for everyone means you have a lust for power and a lack of charity? A little dramatic, and a lot incorrect. It almost sounds judgemental, but I’m hoping you didn’t mean it that way.

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??

 

[irishpatrick]

Romney has now raised $2.5 million, 24000 donors since Supreme Court decision

twitter.com/andreamsaul/status/218471005151174656

I hope that portends what will happen in November.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Wanting healthcare for everyone means you have a lust for power and a lack of charity? A little dramatic, and a lot incorrect. Darn near judgemental. I’ll pray for you.

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)?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Wanting healthcare for everyone means you have a lust for power and a lack of charity? A little dramatic, and a lot incorrect. Darn near judgemental. I’ll pray for you.

It is not worth it just on the basis of impinging on religious liberty. It is not worth huge fines on those who do not want the government mandating them to buy something.

 

[irishpatrick]

Wanting healthcare for everyone means you have a lust for power and a lack of charity? A little dramatic, and a lot incorrect. Darn near judgemental. I’ll pray for you.

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%?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I get that you dislike this president, but please dislike this president with facts.

The facts are more than sufficeint for that.

You keep running away from one issue to another as if trying to find one that might work.

The bottom line is that Obamacare does serious harm to social justice. The SC, by 5-4, elected not to overturn it. It now falls to the political process to right this wrong. And, thus, we see an upsurge in support for Romney.

Whether that will translate into a Romney victory and whether a Romney victory will translate into a more just society, starting with the repeal of Obamacare, remains to be seen.

But one thing is abundantly clear: the alternative is a decent into a socialist hell. No amount of government failure will ever cause socialists to question their love of government. Every human weakness is an excuse for more government power.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Top Ten Worst Things in Obamacare

nationalreview.com/critical-condition/304361/top-ten-worst-things-obamacare-grace-marie-turner
Obamacare Silver Linings: A Limited Victory for Limited Government

blog.heritage.org/2012/06/28/obamacare-silver-linings-a-limited-victory-for-limited-government
The Battle Isn’t Over

The president had two main goals for the law: universal coverage and bending the cost curve down. Under Obamacare neither will be accomplished. There will still be 23 million Americans uninsured in 2019 and the cost will be about $2.7 trillion over the decade 2014 to 2024. Already costs are out of control. The Congressional Budget Office projected that between 2010 and 2020, the law would cost $940 billion. However, the cost from this year till 2022 has now been revised to $1.76 trillion. While the Court ruled the law constitutional, it doesn’t mean it is good policy.

The polls have consistently shown that the American people do not support the law. Prior to the decision today, 54 percent of Americans wanted the law repealed. That number held steady following the ruling. And, according to a new Reuters poll, 61 percent of voters want the individual mandate repealed.

nationalreview.com/critical-condition/304351/battle-isnt-over-sally-c-pipes