Supreme Court Upholds Pro-Abortion, Pro-Rationing Obamacare

  • Thread starter Thread starter juliee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
abortion and rationing were not the question before the court.
 
“Its a red herring to imply that being taxed for [universal] healthcare is to be morally responsible for the addition of abortion in the health care plan. Not only that, its a wolf in sheep’s clothing since it is merely an excuse to prevent [universal] health care.” REAPREASON.
 
The battle continues.

Thank you (name removed by moderator) for reminding us of the three reasons why our bishops oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). That usually gets lost in discussions.

As I understand things: 59 of the 92 provisions in the PPACA are in effect today. The remaining 33 provisions will come to be in the next 3 years - AFTER the elections in November. These provisions will have the most effect on costs to all citizens. So we have not yet felt the full effect.

The President sold the PPACA as “definitely NOT a tax.” The word “TAX” is not in the 2,000 plus pages. However, the 5-4 decision said it is reasonable to treat the individual mandate (buy health insurance or the IRS will ‘fine’ you on your tax return) as a TAX and Congress does have the power to tax. Even if that tax is not wise or fair. As the President was a constitutional law professor at Harvard and has many lawyers at his command, I feel he LIED to America. I doubt Americans would have supported a TAX increase.

The Court held that the Medicare - Medicaid portion was unconstitutional. It seems like individual states have the freedom to opt out of a major portion of the PPACA if they so choose. This could be a huge loophole leaving a law with not much power. We have to wait and see.

No reasonable person can ignore our duty to help the poor. We do. We tend to ignore how much we do already. We will never be able to do enough. Christ said we will always have the poor with us.

The US Government is nearly $16 thousand billion in debt. The US Government is BORROWING nearly 40 cents of every dollar it spends. Our national debt is growing fast. The PPACA will require MORE government spending. We are in real danger of crashing our economy.

We have to temper our desire to help with our need to survive. We need a new Congress and new President that will repeal PPACA and replace it with something less ambitious.
 
april32010 said:
abortion and rationing were not the question before the court.
Click to expand...
This is the only ray of hope today. The actual provisions of the law have not yet made it to SCOTUS; today’s ruling was about the structure and the tax. I haven’t read the whole decision yet but I don’t think this decision even addressed directly the 10th ammendment issue.

Yet to be heard will be challenges to the anti-conscience provisions, the rationing elements, the bundling of elective coverage into a mandatory basket of insurance.

Yes, it is disappointing that the whole thing didn’t get thrown out. This just means that the most harmful elements will have to be challenged one-by-one.
 
Now maybe when the tantrums stop, actual work can begin on REPAIRING this law. Interestingly enough, if you look back to the 1990’s there is a plan that looked very similar proposed by a politican named Newt Gingrich. Who would have thought? 🤷

People with per-existing conditions getting coverage is a GOOD thing. Keeping people out of bankruptcy is a GOOD thing. Getting more people preventative care is a GOOD thing. Tax credits for small businesses that provide coverage is a GOOD thing.

Elective abortion coverage is a BAD thing. No conscience protection is a BAD thing.

Can’t we keep the good and get rid of the bad? Why does it have to be all or nothing?
 
Having the federal government involved in this is a BAD thing. Subsidiarity requires that the states handle these matters themselves.

The court said the law cannot require anyone to buy insurance. But it can tax us if we don’t.
 
Seeker1961 said:
Can’t we keep the good and get rid of the bad? Why does it have to be all or nothing?
Click to expand...
Many laws that are passed that have controversial elements usually have a severability clause - If any part is found unconstitutional, the remaining parts shall remain in effect.

The PPACA did not have this clause. Thus, if any part is unconstitutional the entire law should be unconstitutional. The 4 Supreme Court Justices who dissented today said the entire law should have been held unconstitutional. Then Congress can redesign the Bill with the good part and not the bad parts - as determined by majority votes.

Nonetheless, Congress can, if it chooses, change the law. And the sitting President can sign it or not. If vetoed, then 2/3s of each house in Congress can override the veto.
 
GratefulFred said:
Many laws that are passed that have controversial elements usually have a severability clause - If any part is found unconstitutional, the remaining parts shall remain in effect.

The PPACA did not have this clause. Thus, if any part is unconstitutional the entire law should be unconstitutional. The 4 Supreme Court Justices who dissented today said the entire law should have been held unconstitutional. Then Congress can redesign the Bill with the good part and not the bad parts - as determined by majority votes.

Nonetheless, Congress can, if it chooses, change the law. And the sitting President can sign it or not. If vetoed, then 2/3s of each house in Congress can override the veto.

Which president will approve the necessary changes?
Click to expand...
It all depends on which President thinks changes to the law will benefit him personally. Romney seems to be playing this as if his best hope is to run on repeal, without offering an alternative. Obama will likely focus on the aspects of the law that the majority of people like-coverage for pre-existing conditions, tax credits for small businesses and coverage for preventative care.

I think running on repeal is a bad call, especially since the Mass. Law is so close to this one. I hope someone in the camp thinks this through a little more. I don’t think he can count on rage alone getting him a win.

Remember that for the majority of Americans, this is a minor event. They’ll see the headline, say “oh, the healthcare law is constitutional” and then move on to who is winning “America’s Got Talent”.
 
Seeker1961 said:
Now maybe when the tantrums stop, actual work can begin on REPAIRING this law. Interestingly enough, if you look back to the 1990’s there is a plan that looked very similar proposed by a politican named Newt Gingrich. Who would have thought? 🤷…"

Who would have thought that this law would be passed before it was read or discussed? Remember Pelosi saying it had to be passed so we could see what was in it? Please
know that to say that there “…is a plan that looked very similar” does not mean much.
This law is thousands and thousands of pages. Newt’s was not. If you know details,
then present them please.

Interesting that the court did affirm that this was/will be a TAX , something that Obama
said over and over that it was not.

Basically, those of us who do not feel that is right or just, and, yes, constitutional, are
going to have to fight it in November with our votes.

There have been other proposals to fix health care by the Republicans, but they have
all been tabled, just like the budget proposals, in the Senate. And, of course, there
was little or no news reporting of it unless you watch C-span.
Click to expand...
 
pinetree said:
Having the federal government involved in this is a BAD thing. Subsidiarity requires that the states handle these matters themselves.
Click to expand...
Subsidiarity only applies if the issue is better handled locally. Health insurance is not such an issue. People move from one state to another. It is a BAD thing when people cannot move to another state without fear of loosing their health insurance because of differing rules in different states. Health insurance is a bad candidate for local control because by its very nature health care spans a wide geographic area and a long period of time.
 
TexCatholic4JMJ said:
Seeker1961;9461730:
Now maybe when the tantrums stop, actual work can begin on REPAIRING this law. Interestingly enough, if you look back to the 1990’s there is a plan that looked very similar proposed by a politican named Newt Gingrich. Who would have thought? 🤷…"

Who would have thought that this law would be passed before it was read or discussed? Remember Pelosi saying it had to be passed so we could see what was in it? Please
know that to say that there “…is a plan that looked very similar” does not mean much.
This law is thousands and thousands of pages. Newt’s was not. If you know details,
then present them please.

Interesting that the court did affirm that this was/will be a TAX , something that Obama
said over and over that it was not.

Basically, those of us who do not feel that is right or just, and, yes, constitutional, are
going to have to fight it in November with our votes.

There have been other proposals to fix health care by the Republicans, but they have
all been tabled, just like the budget proposals, in the Senate. And, of course, there
was little or no news reporting of it unless you watch C-span.
Click to expand...
No thanks, you may do your own research. I already did mine and Sister said I should never let anyone copy my answers. 😉

As for who read or didn’t read it- that is their JOB. I don’t care how many pages it is. You READ it. You get your staff together and you get it read and summarized. That “it’s too long” argument is the biggest cop out I ever heard. That’s how we ended up in Iraq too, people were too lazy to go look at the documents and see that there was NO connection to 9-11.
Click to expand...
 
Seeker1961 said:
I think running on repeal is a bad call, especially since the Mass. Law is so close to this one. I hope someone in the camp thinks this through a little more. I don’t think he can count on rage alone getting him a win.

Remember that for the majority of Americans, this is a minor event. They’ll see the headline, say “oh, the healthcare law is constitutional” and then move on to who is winning “America’s Got Talent”.
Click to expand...
I agree with both your points. Running on Repeal ONLY is not enough. REPLACE is what matters. The trick will be to present enough of “Replace” that voters will go with you, but not present so much that voters will split. And to get anything passed, it needs to pass BOTH houses, not just one. President Obama has shown no willingness to compromise with the Republicans, so nothing is being passed.

And unfortunately I think too many Americans are permanently tuned out on trying to understand the issues. Too few vote and many who do, either vote party loyality or for the one they like on TV sound bites. Until we are better in paying attention to the real consequences, we will continue to get lackluster government.
 
Seeker, You were the one that brought up the Newt Gingrich plan…

My point was that this legislation was rushed through before ANYONE had a chance to read it, much less discuss it. Now there will be fewer doctors and longer waits and, in another
part of the ruling, the states do not have to expand their medicaid recepients.
 
TexCatholic4JMJ said:
Seeker, You were the one that brought up the Newt Gingrich plan…

My point was that this legislation was rushed through before ANYONE had a chance to read it, much less discuss it. Obama knew that with the change in the Senate it was his
last chance. So, yeah, I blame the democrats for shoving it down our throats, with very
little help for the poor in it. There will be fewer doctors and longer waits and, in another
part of the ruling, the states do not have to expand their medicaid recepients.
Click to expand...
I guess I’m surprised that people who know so much about this plan don’t know anything about it’s origins. It was obvious to me, but then I’ve got a good memory for this stuff. Google “newt Gingrich health care 1993-1994” and you should find it easily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top