Supreme court unlikely to delay Obama healthcare ruling

  • Thread starter Thread starter Leegal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
EmperorNapoleon said:
That is an unfair and inaccurate characterization of the law. The law allows you to pay an additional percentage in income taxes OR purchase health insurance. One of the points made in the discourse before the Supreme Court is that the government is not requiring you to purchase a service (healthcare) you aren’t already using or won’t use in the future ; merely regulating how you pay for it. Either you get insurance or you pay taxes so that the government will pay for you.
Click to expand...
It is requiring you to purchase a product you may not use. Use of the healthcare system may be an inevitable thing, but using insurance is not.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Can you imagine if anti ObamaCare groups had been found to be paying people to come and protest against it, the mainstream media would not stop going on about it.
Click to expand...
No. It seems that if you support the governmental restraints of the Constitution, you have to pay for your own protesting. If you support the obfuscation and expansion of government power, there is no limit to the money that will pay you to stand around and act like you’re angry.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Avik Roy’s symposium for NRO tomorrow:
Click to expand...
Anything can still happen. As I wrote the other day, it would be premature for conservatives to celebrate. But I’ve gone from thinking that there was nearly zero chance that the Court would strike down the whole law to thinking it could be close to a 50/50 proposition. The Court clearly understands that, if they strike down the mandate and a few related provisions, they could be creating a huge mess that will severely disrupt the American health-care system.
Click to expand...
.

Agree, It would be better for Congress to re-address healthcare rather than try and fix the broken statute, if the individual mandate falls – and as some of the Justices seemed to agree with Clement.
 
I would like to pose a question.If the whole kit and kaboodle is tossed out,how do you think this will impact Obama’s chance for re-election? Meaning,could this actually have a positive impact for him?:confused:
 
Leegal said:
.

Agree, It would be better for Congress to re-address healthcare rather than try and fix the broken statute, if the individual mandate falls – and as some of the Justices seemed to agree with Clement.
Click to expand...
Agree. Scrap the entire thing and actually FIX the problems in a bipartisan way. Also, make it mandatory that Congress MUST comply with whatever they pass. No “opt outs” for political allies. Make it an awesome plan, so that people WANT to be part of it, rather than collectively sue the administration to have it overturned.
 
Does the mandate require people like Amish to purchase insurance??

Along the question of Obama getting reelected, I fear there is no credible Republican challenge that could win. Ergo, 4 more years of Obama. Mother of God, pray for us!
 
Poppingnuts said:
Does the mandate require people like Amish to purchase insurance??

Along the question of Obama getting reelected, I fear there is no credible Republican challenge that could win. Ergo, 4 more years of Obama. Mother of God, pray for us!
Click to expand...
The Republicans can win if they were willing to stop catering to the base. They need to make a genuine effort to win the whole country, but I fear they do not even understand why other segments of the country do not support them.

I believe that discussion of the HHS mandate will help expose evil instead of covering it up so I hope they review the whole thing rather than just a little. 🙂
 
JonNC said:
Throw the bathtub out, too, as far as I’m concerned.

Jon
Click to expand...
Actually, I was thinking same room, different fixture, but . . . never mind.
Poppingnuts said:
Along the question of Obama getting reelected, I fear there is no credible Republican challenge that could win. Ergo, 4 more years of Obama. Mother of God, pray for us!
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I see nothing in the current situation that would cause me to disagree with your first two statements, and I definitely agree with your last.
 
Poppingnuts said:
Does the mandate require people like Amish to purchase insurance??

Along the question of Obama getting reelected, I fear there is no credible Republican challenge that could win. Ergo, 4 more years of Obama. Mother of God, pray for us!
Click to expand...
The Amish are exempt from the mandate, just as they are from Social Security and Medicare, even though Social Security is more a tax than an insurance plan. They had to suffer for 27 years until they got the SS exemption in 1965 with the passage of Medicare. It is also possible grounds for dismissal of the HHS mandate on contraception even if the health insurance mandate being considered now is upheld. Some groups get exemptions based on conscience and others do not. That could be considered a violation of the first amendment because it has Congress favoring one religious group over another.

I sure hope the whole bloody mess is thrown out. Having the federal government in control of another 18% of the national economy that health care represents is a sure invitation to tyranny from the next administration, or the next, or the one after that.
 
Dawnia said:
It is requiring you to purchase a product you may not use. Use of the healthcare system may be an inevitable thing, but using insurance is not.
Click to expand...
The product you are ultimately purchasing is healthcare and insurance is merely a method of payment. To say that you would never use insurance once you possess it is pure folly.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
That is an unfair and inaccurate characterization of the law. The law allows you to pay an additional percentage in income taxes OR purchase health insurance. One of the points made in the discourse before the Supreme Court is that the government is not requiring you to purchase a service (healthcare) you aren’t already using or won’t use in the future ; merely regulating how you pay for it. Either you get insurance or you pay taxes so that the government will pay for you.
Click to expand...
The law forces you to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Also, the minimum coverage
provision in the Affordable Care Act tells you what your minimum coverage will be. The minimum coverage is a comprehensive policy, not a catastrophic policy. It may not require you to purchase a healthcare service but it surely forces you to purchases a healthcare insurance service, except for the poor and those given waivers.

Peace,
T
 
UNITE_MY_WILL said:
The law forces you to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.
Click to expand...
The law requires that you pay for healthcare period. How you do so is up to you; either through an increase in income taxes or the purchasing of insurance.
UNITE_MY_WILL said:
The minimum coverage is a comprehensive policy, not a catastrophic policy. It may not require you to purchase a healthcare service but it surely forces you to purchases a healthcare insurance service, except for the poor and those given waivers.
Click to expand...
As was pointed out by the Supreme Court; you’re already participating in the market of health insurance by virtue of the fact that your use of healthcare services has a direct impact on insurance costs. Its no different than the States requiring drivers to purchase auto insurance.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
The law requires that you pay for healthcare period. How you do so is up to you; either through an increase in income taxes or the purchasing of insurance.

Not necessarily…the purchase is for a insurance policy, one that will dictate the minimum coverage I must have, not healthcare. The law dictates how I should pay for healthcare, through the comprehensive policy, even if I do not want it or use it. If I choose not to purchase a penalty will be imposed and collected through the IRS.

As was pointed out by the Supreme Court; you’re already participating in the market of health insurance by virtue of the fact that your use of healthcare services has a direct impact on insurance costs. Its no different than the States requiring drivers to purchase auto insurance.
Click to expand...
Wrong. A not all drivers or even auto owners are required to purchase auto insurance. The ones that are it is through the state level not federal. Although, I do have health insurance through my husbands employer, the cost of the policy far out weighs the 1-2 times a year I use it.

Please understand I 100% believe we need healthcare reform. Healthcare, urgent and preventive should be available and affordable for all. I just don’t think the current law is the way.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Its no different than the States requiring drivers to purchase auto insurance.
Click to expand...
No, you can elect to not drive in which case you are not obligated to buy auto insurance. Also, States (in our system of government) have a great deal more latitude than the federal government in these matters… by design.
 
The_Rock said:
No, you can elect to not drive in which case you are not obligated to buy auto insurance.
Click to expand...
You can also elect not to purchase health insurance and pay an additional percentage in income taxes instead. The bill only regulates how you pay for services you will receive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top