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:
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.
Click to expand...
Semantics. If you don’t pay your credit card and they garnish your wages you are still paying no matter what. You can pay a premium or you can pay a tax. Renaming it doesnt change it.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
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.
Click to expand...
👍 Maybe they could focus on the actual expense of medical care, instead of trying the bandaid approach of mandating insurance, which doesn’t solve the problem of expensive medical care.
 
Moore11 said:
Semantics. If you don’t pay your credit card and they garnish your wages you are still paying no matter what. You can pay a premium or you can pay a tax. Renaming it doesnt change it.
Click to expand...
Either way you have to pay for those services. There’s no way around a mandate in a for-profit healthcare system unless you want the rich to be the only people receiving quality healthcare while the middle class serves as the packhorse for everyone else’s medical bills.
 
Dawnia said:
👍 Maybe they could focus on the actual expense of medical care, instead of trying the bandaid approach of mandating insurance, which doesn’t solve the problem of expensive medical care.
Click to expand...
Healthcare costs are high because the cost of treating the uninsured, and by extension those who can’t afford the treatment, must be accounted for. The risk of a rise in healthcare costs causes a market correction in the insurance industry. This is all just a fancy way of saying that your insurance premiums rise because healthcare providers have to fleece the insured to avoid financial loss resulting from the treatment of the uninsured. The government eliminates that risk by requiring everyone to possess health insurance OR pay additional income taxes to provide funding for the healthcare services they will inevitably use. Ultimately, premiums and healthcare costs will decline as the insurance pool grows and healthcare providers no longer have to worry about getting shafted by the poor and uninsured. A mandate is the only way to accomplish this in a for-profit healthcare system. If we continue to allow payment for rendered healthcare services to be optional then the uninsured will have 0 motivation to start paying for it and costs will remain high.
 
March madness is over, how about Mandate Madness?

The decision, of course will be 5-4, but which way? [put me down for the gov’t loses]

Over-under on how many total opinions? Between dissenting, concurring, dissenting in part, concurring in part. *

Any surprises? I think maybe one liberal will find some provision un-Constitutional.

Will there be a shake-up in the SG’s office after this? There should be. The gov’t lost 9-0 in Hosanna-Tabor because the SG’s argument was so extreme.
A legal blog I read commented that Vermelli’s [sp?] arguments were more the sort to go over in the Harvard faculty lounge than in SCOTUS.
*
 
Congressmen on Constitutionality of the Manate:
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, recently told a CNS News reporter that the “good and welfare clause” gives Congress the authority to force individuals to buy health insurance which is required in the health care bill. However, there is no “good and welfare clause” in the U.S. Constitution:
Click to expand...
At a July 24 town hall meeting Rep. Fortney “Pete” Stark (D-Calif.) offered up the quintessential political elitist’s answer to the question of whether or not the Constitution limits the federal government in any meaningful way. Said Stark: “The federal government … can do most anything in this country.”
Click to expand...
CNSNews.com: “Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?”
Click to expand...
Sen. Leahy: “We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?”
Click to expand...
CNSNews.com: “I’m asking–”
Click to expand...
Sen. Leahy: “Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.”
Click to expand...
IIRC, Sen. Leahy is Chmn of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
 
IMO its not even going to be close. Won’t hear till June, however, by listening to the case last night. The question seemed to me is only how much will need to be removed. And what will be left when they begin with inter-related sections? And with 275 pages I don’t believe anyone wants to go through the entire article. Especially to see the interconnection, however, much isn’t related, like Nutritional Labels improved and required on all sold items etc. We’ll see, but with 26 states in suit? Not looking great for the mandate.

Send it all back and start from scratch with Congess. Apparently they need more practice communicating anyway. 😛 And right no “opt outs” for political allies.
 
I think either the whole bill be found constitutional or whole bill found unconstitutional.
 
didymus said:
Congressmen on Constitutionality of the Manate:

IIRC, Sen. Leahy is Chmn of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Click to expand...
The “general welfare” clause of the Constitution is in the preamble, which doesn’t articulate power to anyone. It is the part of the Constitution where “We the People” describe why the Constitution is established in the first place. The enumerated powers are described in Articles I - VII
 
Apparently there is going to be a preliminary vote on ObamaCare with the Justices tomorrow so we will know then.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Apparently there is going to be a preliminary vote on ObamaCare with the Justices tomorrow so we will know then.
Click to expand...
Oh? well thats good to know, I was under the impression it would be late June before we heard anything more.
 
“The mess that is ObamaCare is not going away. The president’s handling of it will deeply affect his re-election chances” - Karl Rove in the Wall Street Journal

“Mitt Romney’s job in a post-Obamacare world is to show voters what his alternative would be. In a recent op-ed in USA Today, he begins to set this out: tax benefits for individuals purchasing insurance outside their workplace; more competition and consumer choice for insurance plans; medical-malpractice reform; interstate insurance options; and state-determined insurance protection for those with preexisting illnesses. All this is a good start. Rather than a government-run health-care reform, Romney is pushing a market-run reform, which has long been a Republican idea.” - Larry Kudlow for NRO

Pete Wehner on Commentary: “Listening to the oral arguments on the Supreme Court during the last three days is a reminder of why it is, in many respects, the intellectual crown jewel for conservatives, and why it’s vital that those appointed to the high court aren’t simply reliable votes but are capable of making compelling arguments.”
Code: 
 The Long-Awaited Coming of a Conservative Court? - Maggie Gallagher for [RCP](http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/03/29/the_long-awaited_coming_of_a_conservative_court_113655.html)
After three days of testimony, one thing is clear: No one really knows how the Court is going to decide - Ben Jacobs for the Daily Beast

White House says it has no contingency plan on health law - NPR
 
freebeacon.com/white-house-tries-to-rebrand-mandate/
The Obama administration is now referring to Obamacare as a “bi-partisan bill” and calling the unpopular individual mandate “a Republican idea,” following three days of tough questioning by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
“The Affordable Care Act is a bipartisan plan and one that we think is constitutional,” Deputy White House press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Wednesday afternoon.
Click to expand...
He also referred to the individual mandate as the “individual responsibility” clause of the bill, in an attempt to distance the administration from the term individual mandate.
Click to expand...
“The administration remains confident that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional; one of the reasons for that is that the original personal responsibility clause…was a conservative idea,” he said.
Click to expand...
Conservatives have blasted the administration for the individual mandate and only one Republican voted for Obamacare in both houses of the legislature.
Click to expand...
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
The “general welfare” clause of the Constitution is in the preamble, which doesn’t articulate power to anyone. It is the part of the Constitution where “We the People” describe why the Constitution is established in the first place. The enumerated powers are described in Articles I - VII
Click to expand...
Well, yes and no. It’s part of the Constitution if it cedes more power to the government, and not part if it reserves power to the people. Sorta like obamacare’s penalty/tax is a penalty when you* want it to be, and a tax when you* want it to be.

*The rhetorical “you”.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
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.
Click to expand...
I know from experience that having insurance does not mean you get to use said insurance. But that was not what I was saying. You can certainly pay for medical expenses out of your own pocket or forego medical treatment, many people do not use insurance to pay for their medical care.
 
sedonaman said:
Well, yes and no. It’s part of the Constitution if it cedes more power to the government, and not part if it reserves power to the people. Sorta like obamacare’s penalty/tax is a penalty when you* want it to be, and a tax when you* want it to be.

*The rhetorical “you”.
Click to expand...
I am not sure where, in this language, we cede or authorize power to anyone:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

🤷

All it states is We the people of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the united states of America. All that stuff in the middle are subordinate clauses that explain the reasons why the Constitution was established. It doesn’t grant power to anyone or any entity.

I mean, why is it that legislators never quote the “Blessings of Liberty” clause when they claim they have the power to do stuff? 🤷
 
Nec5 said:
If the individual mandate goes, the rest can stay in place, but it becomes a funding problem. In some respects, I hope that happens and the rest of the stuff stays in place. Then the health insurance industry will get what they deserve for striking a devil’s bargain. Here’s the bargain they struck:
  1. Health insurance companies agree to cover people on their parents’ plan longer.
  2. Health insurance companies agree to cover those with pre-existing conditions.
  3. Health insurance companies agree to not deny anyone coverage.
This dramatically raises their costs. Why did they do it? The individual mandate:

Because Obamacare puts a gun to every citizen’s head and requires them to buy the health insurance companies’ product or be punished. And yes, it’s a gun to the head because if you don’t pay the penalty, Johnny Law comes a knockin’ when he’s not preying on motorists. And the health insurance industry gets millions of new customers guaranteed without any need for advertising costs.

If the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate, the underlined part goes away, but points 1-3 remain. The health insurance companies get hosed by those costs as well they should for endorsing a bill that robs man of his god given liberty.

Of course, then they likely get into trouble by raising premiums or go out of business. Then the geniuses in our government will try something else. One way or the other, the rotten progressives will win because the other side is spiritually and morally impotent (i.e. Romney/Bush and the Republicans), but it might be fun to watch evil squirm a bit under it own shenanigans.
Click to expand...
I agree. Those who lay with dogs get fleas.

The insurance industry is going to pay dearly if the mandate is struck down, and rightly so. Bankruptcy would do the morally bereft some good, assuming they learn from their greed. I have little pity for the people who get hurt who supported this garbage either. They deserve prayer, but it is hard to feel pity for people who choose to continually bang their head against a wall and then complain of headaches. They deserve the pain they get.

Now if the end result is simply raising premiums, then once again, every American will pay for the President’s childlike meddling. History is going to remember Obama as a complete failure. Those with common sense and a sense of morality already do.
 
Moore11 said:
If the supreme court strikes down in whole or part the healthcare case before it, will that nullify or perhaps soften the HHS mandate?
Click to expand...
The mandate is built on the ACA, so if most or all of the law goes down, the mandate goes away as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top