Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Domnall said:
I’m pretty happy with the Health Care Act ruling, personally. I think it will be beneficial to the millions of Americans that will now have access to health insurance that didn’t have it before. Heck, I don’t even care that Chief Justice Roberts called the penalty a tax. So what? The sky is not falling people.

On the other hand, I still don’t support the HHS mandate. However, I believe the court will be ruling on that at a later time. Considering what Justice Ginsberg said in her opinion, I think we Catholics may get a victory there!
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree with this opinion.
 
**Romney says Obamacare ruling a ‘a plus’ for him, will energise conservatives **
In an interview with Newsmax, Mitt Romney said that the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding Obamacare was “a plus” for him.
Click to expand...
“And I think in the election this November, people who know they don’t want ObamaCare will have to vote out President Obama…,” Romney said. “The Obamacare ruling makes the urgency of replacing President Obama even more clear in the minds of American voters.”
Click to expand...
Romney also said that the Court’s ruling would give his supporters “more energy and passion in this election, more urgency to replace the President than might have occurred had the bill been struck down.”
Click to expand...
The Romney campaign has raised nearly $5 million in online donations since the Court’s ruling, which has galvanized conservatives and Tea Partiers who now see a Romney presidency as the only way Obamacare can be fully repealed.
Click to expand...
breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/30/Romney-Says-Obamacare-Ruling-A-Plus-For-Him-Will-Energize-Conservatives
 
 
…as does the “truth” that this administration "evolves. This is so sad because this is what we are learning from those we are “suppose” to trust. Once truth is broken there is no more trust. This entire fiasco has taught our children one thing…well it has taught them nothing that means a hill of beans.
 
estesbob said:
Nor Obamas position in 2008.
Click to expand...
Good point. Obama was converted to the mandate and against the public option by the Republicans. Probably two of the reasons why many of those on the left oppose OC.
 
If this ruling continues to be a major issue for the Presidential election, Romney will be put in a position of opposing a health-care law that was modeled on his own state policy. The fact that his was state-sponsored as distinct from federally-mandated may be significant, but will most likely be lost on much of the electorate. So if Romney says he is going to repeal Obamacare on day one if he is elected (never mind the fact that would be virtually impossible without a Republican majority in the House and the Senate), the Democratic side will concurrently play up the successful Romneycare model that was the prototype of their own health-care policy and the already-perceived idea that Romney is a flip-flopper on the issues. Besides, is it really wise for the Republicans to be fighting against a health-care policy without specifying their own plan, but instead just telling the public to trust them that they can do better provided they are voted into office? Further, unless a link can be made between health care and jobs (particularly small-business employment), the Republicans might be taking their eye off the prize, which is the vulnerability of the Democrats regarding the economy. With respect to the Democrats, if they insist that their own policy is modeled after Romney’s Massachusetts law, they might be putting themselves in the awkward position of having to admit that Romney was an effective Governor who had the ability to resolve problems, such as health care, that are important to the electorate. Tricky politics for both sides in an election year, and I wonder whether the people are the winners no matter who gets elected.
 
meltzerboy said:
If this ruling continues to be a major issue for the Presidential election, Romney will be put in a position of opposing a health-care law that was modeled on his own state policy. The fact that his was state-sponsored as distinct from federally-mandated may be significant, but will most likely be lost on much of the electorate. So if Romney says he is going to repeal Obamacare on day one if he is elected (never mind the fact that would be virtually impossible without a Republican majority in the House and the Senate), the Democratic side will concurrently play up the successful Romneycare model that was the prototype of their own health-care policy and the already-perceived idea that Romney is a flip-flopper on the issues. Besides, is it really wise for the Republicans to be fighting against a health-care policy without specifying their own plan, but instead just telling the public to trust them that they can do better provided they are voted into office? Further, unless a link can be made between health care and jobs (particularly small-business employment), the Republicans might be taking their eye off the prize, which is the vulnerability of the Democrats regarding the economy. With respect to the Democrats, if they insist that their own policy is modeled after Romney’s Massachusetts law, they might be putting themselves in the awkward position of having to admit that Romney was an effective Governor who had the ability to resolve problems, such as health care, that are important to the electorate. Tricky politics for both sides in an election year, and I wonder whether the people are the winners no matter who gets elected.
Click to expand...
Romney is supportive of state experimentation. It is a huge difference for the state of Massachusetts to experiment with their health care system, than ObamaTax which wants to impose on all 50 states and is one-size-fits-all. RomneyCare was crafted for one particular state and their needs, all states would not fit that system.

Romney
‘When I was governor of Massachusetts, we instituted a plan that got our citizens insured without raising taxes and without a government takeover. Other states will choose to go in different directions. It is the genius of federalism that it encourages experimentation, with each state pursuing what works best for them. ObamaCare’s disregard for this core aspect of U.S. tradition is one of its most egregious failings’
Click to expand...
articles.cnn.com/2012-03-23/politics/politics_health-care-law-anniversary_1_health-care-obamacare-massachusetts-governor/2?_s=PM:POLITICS

RomneyCare did not take billions out of medicare like ObamaTax takes $500 billion out of MediCare

RomneyCare did not raise taxes, ObamaTax creates 21 new taxes, 12 of those on those earning less than $250000
 
In 2008, Obama Attacked Hillary Clinton For Health Care "Penalty"
White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew strenuously argued today those not buying insurance after ObamaCare takes effect will be subject to a penalty, not a politically unsavory tax. But in 2008, then-Senator Obama attacked his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton’s plan for including a “penalty” for those not buying health insurance. A Republican source sends along the ad.
Click to expand...
White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew: It’s a penalty, not a tax

youtube.com/watch?v=HyKGPqc5u3w

Obama 2008 ad attacking Hillary Clinton for Health Care ‘Penalty’

youtube.com/watch?v=HrCRb8gB_II

buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/in-2008-obama-attacked-hillary-clinton-for-health#HTWF2
 
_Abyssinia said:
Romney is supportive of state experimentation. It is a huge difference for the state of Massachusetts to experiment with their health care system, than ObamaTax which wants to impose on all 50 states and is one-size-fits-all. RomneyCare was crafted for one particular state and their needs, all states would not fit that system.

Romney

articles.cnn.com/2012-03-23/politics/politics_health-care-law-anniversary_1_health-care-obamacare-massachusetts-governor/2?_s=PM:POLITICS

RomneyCare did not take billions out of medicare like ObamaTax takes $500 billion out of MediCare

RomneyCare did not raise taxes, ObamaTax creates 21 new taxes, 12 of those on those earning less than $250000
Click to expand...
I agree there are differences. However, it is up to Romney to make these differences clear to the public. That means he must talk about his own Romneycare in Mass. and not shy away from it or merely mention it in passing, and he must contrast it to Obamacare. He must also tell the public whether or not he favors a national health care policy eventually, or would prefer to leave health care exclusively to the states. If Romney is working on “universal” national health care, let him tell us how he would do it differently from Obama. If he wants health care to remain with the states, Romney must explain how that policy will be more beneficial than a national one.
 
_Abyssinia said:
In 2008, Obama Attacked Hillary Clinton For Health Care "Penalty"

White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew: It’s a penalty, not a tax

youtube.com/watch?v=HyKGPqc5u3w

Obama 2008 ad attacking Hillary Clinton for Health Care ‘Penalty’

youtube.com/watch?v=HrCRb8gB_II

buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/in-2008-obama-attacked-hillary-clinton-for-health#HTWF2
Click to expand...
No doubt Romney has no corner on the “evolution” market. I recall Obama’s opposition to Hillary Clinton’s health care proposal, and that’s why I supported Clinton.
 
meltzerboy said:
I agree there are differences. However, it is up to Romney to make these differences clear to the public. That means he must talk about his own Romneycare in Mass. and not shy away from it or merely mention it in passing, and he must contrast it to Obamacare. He must also tell the public whether or not he favors a national health care policy eventually, or would prefer to leave health care exclusively to the states. If Romney is working on “universal” national health care, let him tell us how he would do it differently from Obama. If he wants health care to remain with the states, Romney must explain how that policy will be more beneficial than a national one.
Click to expand...
Romney has said is he wants health care reform, not nationalised health care or RomneyCare for all 50 states
 
_Abyssinia said:
Romney has said is he wants health care reform, not nationalised health care or RomneyCare for all 50 states
Click to expand...
This is a very ambitious program on Romney’s part. Questions: will the Congress, especially if Democrats are in control, go along with it? How expensive will it be for the state governments and will they need federal aid to implement it? How long will this take to implement on a state-by-state basis? What do people do about health care coverage and costs in the meantime?

Since you’re apparently Romney’s campaign manager, Abyssinia, I’m addressing these questions to you.
 
I disagree with the ruling, primarily because there was logical inconsistency in the ruling itself, the court was able to take the case because it wasn’t being treated as a tax, but their ruling was based on the assumption that it was a tax. Logically inconsistent. Also, if it was struck down, it would not only free us from a new governmental oversight, but would also give us precedence to prevent other attempts at the same thing. We can still repeal it in congress, but it is a lot less helpful long-term and short term than simply striking it down would have been.
 
Jeffrey said:
It should be up to the states… not the feds. And obamacare is all bad if you work for a living.
Click to expand...
How does it become bad once it crosses MA states line? That’s the part that has me scratching my head.

And by the way…who or what determines ‘should’?
 
Should is becuz it should be up to the states… .not the feds stepping on states rights. It should be up to the voters. I shoulodn’t have to be forced to pay for healthcare i do not want.
seekerz said:
How does it become bad once it crosses MA states line? That’s the part that has me scratching my head.

And by the way…who or what determines ‘should’?
Click to expand...
 
Jeffrey said:
Should is becuz it should be up to the states… .not the feds stepping on states rights. It should be up to the voters. I shoulodn’t have to be forced to pay for healthcare i do not want.
Click to expand...
Part of my original question was: who determines ‘should’? Is it defined in some handbook or manual or perhaps by some panel?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top