| Forum Index > General Forum |
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
Let's pretend that instead of a individual mandate to purchase health insurance, people were denied emergency care UNLESS they had health insurance. That would be a very dark and dystopic way of forcing everyone to pay for health insurance that would be constitutional. Unfortunately the worse possible fine is death. Whoops! | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
| ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On March 28 2012 12:08 Defacer wrote: I had a silly, ridiculous thought. Let's pretend that instead of a individual mandate to purchase health insurance, people were denied emergency care UNLESS they had health insurance. That would be a very dark and dystopic way of forcing everyone to pay for health insurance that would be constitutional. Unfortunately the worse possible fine is death. Whoops! If that happens I'll try to become a political refugee and flee to your country lol. Joking aside, I'm not too worried since I live in one of the most liberal states in the country. If shit gets bad, we'll find a workaround. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/03/obamacare-and-supreme-court Also, if you want you can hear the oral arguments here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Tuesday | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 28 2012 12:05 sunprince wrote: I doubt this. None of the conservative justices focused on the idea that this is a contract. If this is struck down, it will be primarily on the basis that this does not qualify as interstate commerce so Congress has no power to enact it. You may want to study what issues have been briefed for the Court. This case isn't about interstate commerce. No one's arguing that the health care industry doesn't have interstate effects. This is mostly about the scope of the federal government's power in managing interstate commerce. EDIT: There are some other issues as well like states rights issues with regards to whether Obamacare unconstitutionally forces state action. However, the constitutionality of the individual mandate is the biggie. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 28 2012 12:08 Defacer wrote: I had a silly, ridiculous thought. Let's pretend that instead of a individual mandate to purchase health insurance, people were denied emergency care UNLESS they had health insurance. That would be a very dark and dystopic way of forcing everyone to pay for health insurance that would be constitutional. Unfortunately the worse possible fine is death. Whoops! I doubt that would be constitutional under even rational basis scrutiny (and that's presuming that federal commerce powers even allow such a regulation). | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On March 28 2012 09:59 tree.hugger wrote: The main issue, which the court did not seem receptive is that health care is a cost that is paid no matter what. Emergency rooms cannot turn patients down, and so if a patient who cannot pay is treated, then a patient who can pay will be forced to cover the cost of the patient who cannot. That's why the Obama administration argued that this is not a case of 'forcing people to pay for something' as the poster above me suggests. Because people are already paying for it, there is no new market created; simply a mandate that everyone pay their fair share. A lot of people are in complete disbelief that the court was so hostile to this argument, most legal experts believed the anti-obamacare case had a snowball's shot in hell. It seemed obvious a day ago that health care is a unique case, but instead some smart people who theoretically should know better bought straight into the tea party rhetoric about mandating the purchase of broccoli. Stare decisis, a majority of lower courts, and common sense all point to the individual mandate being plainly constitutional, in the same way the government mandates people buy car seats for young children, car insurance for their cars, or pay taxes to support the local fire prevention monopoly (fire department), the local police monopoly (police department), the local school monopoly (school system), and the host of other public goods that we share. Sure, you may not want to pay for the fire department, because the chances of your house burning down are small, or you may not want to buy a child's car seat because the chances of you getting in an accident are slim. But tough, your actions affect other people, and thus as part of the society we live in you need to purchase these things. It'll be interesting to see how far SCOTUS takes this radical 'liberty' argument. The court's decision in this case could open up a ton of other government programs that have been settled law for decades to scrutiny and litigation. Most large government programs from the New Deal on are at stake if the court goes the direction they seemed to be leaning in today. It's frightening. Hilarious and deeply, deeply sad that the right complained for years about 'judicial activism' and now the Supremes have already overturned precedent and common sense in Citizens United, and might be about to do it again here. How incredibly, incredibly disappointing to watch. You make some good points but you really contradict yourself when you lash out at the broccoli argument and then bring up equally vapid points about police and car insurance. Police funding comes from STATE AND LOCAL taxing, not the Federal Government. Car insurance laws in America come also from the States, not the Federal Government. There is no contradiction there. States can already enforce an individual mandate, but the Federal Government may not be able to (pending the result of this case). Even the points that others make about Social Security are not well taken. Social Security is a tax that is used to fund an entitlement. That is fundamentally different than the individual mandate. The individual mandate says that the Federal Government is forcing private citizens to enter into a contract with another private entity. It's wholly unique from all other existing Government programs. That's not to say its inherently unconstitutional, but it is in no way like Social Security, it's NOTHING like car insurance, and has absolutely zero to do with police or fire departments. The last point about judicial activism is just a straight up misunderstanding of what the term means. Judicial activism is NOT the courts overturning laws. That is ludicrous. What is the Supreme Court for, then? Each branch of government is designed to have checks and balanced on the other branches. The Supreme Court is meant to be a check on the Legislative Branch by evaluating legislation against the Constitution and striking down those laws that are unconstitutional. It's fundamental to the core of the institution. It's the clear framer's intent. No conservative, no American should be against that. It is NOT judicial activism. It's the system working as it should. Judicial activism is going beyond the bounds of the Constitution to create or deny rights to people or entities. Some people would point to the creation of the "right to privacy" from the wording of the 4th Amendment to be an instance of judicial activism. Citizen's United may be seen as a case of judicial activism. Usually judicial activism applies more as the Supreme Court justices move farther and farther away from strict interpretations of the Constitution and apply more subjective interpretations in their rulings. It's not clear how overturning this law would be judicial activism. It would be a strict interpretation of the Commerce Clause. To uphold the mandate would be to apply a subjective interpretation of the Commerce Clause (the government can regulate your non-participation in the insurance market because you will at some point need health care which would may necessitate you needing insurance). Upholding a strict interpretation of the Constitution simply cannot be judicial activism by the very definition of the terms. | ||
|
Scorm
United States104 Posts
If this gets passed, I may leave the country because American the Free will just be America once we get government health care. Please, get educated before you go thinking "free" health care is actually free. Nothing is free. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On March 28 2012 13:44 Scorm wrote: If this is passed, expect a serious decline in... Everything. It is proven in the past that when a government buys its position through favors that eventually they will run out of funds for the promises. At this point, the people will become angry and the government will change. Work for what you own, don't expect someone to pay for it. The government is already squandering millions on worthless projects and yet, we are going to give them more money and more of our autonomy because we cannot take care of ourselves? That sounds simply pathetic. We are immature and impulsive and it is no wonder why other countries mock us Americans. Yes, they have health care funded by the government, but that is what made America great: the ability to buy a better future through diligence and hard work. Obamacare is "free health care." Anyone pompous enough to believe such a thing is obviously ignorant. Nothing is free, someone somewhere paid for what you are saying is "free." We have to pay on this healthcare for four years before we get any benefits of it. Do you have to do this with a car or a house before you get to drive it or live in it? No. This absurdity goes to show that we cannot financially back this program and we are already seriously in debt because of Obama's foolish attempts at fixing the economy. Throw more money at the issue and it will solve itself? Really? Social security and Medicaid are going out, but we think we can support healthcare? Idiocy. Do not be so ignorant to think that this healthcare will solve anything. We amounted 10 trillion dollars of debt starting in the 1960's. Since Obama has been in office, we have amounted 4 trillion dollars of debt in the few brief years he derping around in the White House. His policy for solving problems: throw money at it. And if that does not work? Make a speech that motivates the ignorant populace into thinking there will be "change" and then throw more money at the problem just expecting it to get better. This "policy" has never worked for anything more than a temporary fix and the infection just gets worse when you try to cover it up. If this gets passed, I may leave the country because American the Free will just be America once we get government health care. Please, get educated before you go thinking "free" health care is actually free. Nothing is free. I suggest you get educated on the cost of Obamacare. It will save $210 billion over 2012-2021. On March 24 2012 17:24 SniperSamS2 wrote: it is through the necessary and proper and/with commerce clause in which obamacare may be constitutional. it depends how you define what is "necessary and proper" and also because "commerce" is basically everything everything related with money, congress may be able do it. it also depends on how the founding fathers thought the constitution should be interpreted. it is unreasonable to base American Fed law today on exact "word for word" of the constitution but also unreasonable to make almost everything under necessary and proper and commerce. the real question should be where the line is between what is necessary and what is just plain BS. i personally dont oppose universal health care but i do oppose obamacare which was passed when we were in debt with trillions of dollars. Awesome. Because the CBO recently put out a statement that Obamacare will cost $50 billion less than previously thought. CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period (see Table 1, following the text).3 The net costs reflect: [...] CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated.4 https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage Estimates.pdf That estimate of the budget deficit that has not been updated says $-210 billion dollars on the budget deficit over 2012-2021. Source: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf Table 1. There's been news coverage recently that the CBO's report (the first link) says that Obamacare will cost more, that's a complete lie. Read the source yourself. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On March 28 2012 10:01 DeepElemBlues wrote: Citizens United was also perfectly in tune with common sense and precedent, it all depends on which precedents you like and pick and choose. Citzens United was a dumb decision. Yes, corporations are legally poeple, but that is for practical purposes. The reason for this is so that when a corporation makes an act, you are able to sue them in the equivalent manner as if it was a private citizen (respondeat superior and agency makes having to sue the corp neccessary). Giving them substantive rights equivalent to actual citizens is not common sense and not really precedent. Does it make logical sense? Yes. But it isn't common sense. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 28 2012 13:48 BluePanther wrote: Citzens United was a dumb decision. Yes, corporations are legally poeple, but that is for practical purposes. The reason for this is so that when a corporation makes an act, you are able to sue them in the equivalent manner as if it was a private citizen (respondeat superior and all that jazz makes having to sue the corp necc). Giving them substantive rights equivalent to actual citizens is not common sense and not really precedent. Does it make logical sense? Yes. But it isn't common sense. Wtf kind of republican are you and how can say this kind of stuff after having worked for a republican politician? Citizen's United leveled the financial playing field that was previously tilted heavily in favor of democrats. And yes, giving corporate entities rights does make sense, because, despite the legal fiction of the entity, behind every corporation are real people. Denying rights to corporations ultimately results in the denial of rights to the people behind the corporation. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On March 28 2012 13:57 xDaunt wrote: Wtf kind of republican are you and how can say this kind of stuff after having worked for a republican politician? Citizen's United leveled the financial playing field that was previously tilted heavily in favor of democrats. And yes, giving corporate entities rights does make sense, because, despite the legal fiction of the entity, behind every corporation are real people. Denying rights to corporations ultimately results in the denial of rights to the people behind the corporation. Does not follow... They are free to donate to and support political parties with their own money as private citizens. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On March 28 2012 13:57 xDaunt wrote: Wtf kind of republican are you and how can say this kind of stuff after having worked for a republican politician? Citizen's United leveled the financial playing field that was previously tilted heavily in favor of democrats. I don't think it's possible to have both unlimited corporate financing of political campaigns and a free market economy. These entities that effectively control our politicians will seek to influence regulations, the tax code, etc in ways that give them huge advantages over their competition. A Republican who wants the economy to be a level playing field between both established and upstart firms wouldn't want that kind of rent-seeking becoming (further) entrenched in our political system, even if it benefits their party. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On March 28 2012 13:57 xDaunt wrote: Wtf kind of republican are you and how can say this kind of stuff after having worked for a republican politician? Citizen's United leveled the financial playing field that was previously tilted heavily in favor of democrats. And yes, giving corporate entities rights does make sense, because, despite the legal fiction of the entity, behind every corporation are real people. Denying rights to corporations ultimately results in the denial of rights to the people behind the corporation. Personally, I'm a moderate/independant. I even confess that I voted for more Dems than Rep in 2010. I just align with republicans because it's the lesser of two evils (and I live in a Republican area). You have to pick one of the two when you work in politics and it's more aligned with my opinions/needs. I'm also extremely selective in which kind of campaign I associate with. I understand that logically Citizens United makes sense. I acknowledged that in my post. However, I don't believe the constitution requires us to give corporations certain rights and the Court was essentially practicing activism that wasn't productive. In response to your argument, those individuals are free to exercise their rights in their private lives. Like being in the military: When wearing a uniform, you are not allowed to participate in political speech, nor are you allowed to use your military titles as a pawn in politics. However, the second you take off your uniform you are free to do whatever legal activites you want as a private citizen. I think that is a much more apt analogy to the issue. I see both sides of it, but I disagree with SCOTUS rather vehemently on that decision. It was as bad as Dred Scott IMO, in that it was an unneccessary decision that has very farreaching consequences that (I think) are nothing but bad. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On March 28 2012 14:14 Signet wrote: I don't think it's possible to have both unlimited corporate financing of political campaigns and a free market economy. These entities that effectively control our politicians will seek to influence regulations, the tax code, etc in ways that give them huge advantages over their competition. A Republican who wants the economy to be a level playing field between both established and upstart firms wouldn't want that kind of rent-seeking becoming (further) entrenched in our political system, even if it benefits their party. And this is the policy reason for why I disagree with it. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 28 2012 14:11 paralleluniverse wrote: Does not follow... They are free to donate to and support political parties with their own money as private citizens. That is not the point. The interests of a corporation are not the same as the interests of its individual owners. Because of this, corporations cannot rely upon their owners to pursue corporate interests with the same vigor that the corporation would (this is particularly true in corporations with large numbers of owners who each own relatively small interests). The corporation thus must be free to engage in various actions on its own accord --- including political lobbying and speech. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On March 28 2012 14:28 xDaunt wrote: That is not the point. The interests of a corporation are not the same as the interests of its individual owners. Because of this, corporations cannot rely upon their owners to pursue corporate interests with the same vigor that the corporation would (this is particularly true in corporations with large numbers of owners who each own relatively small interests). The corporation thus must be free to engage in various actions on its own accord --- including political lobbying and speech. I agree with what you said about being restricted. It is clear that their speech is being inhibited by said regulations. But I read the first amendment as permitting the dissemination of ideas. Restricting corporations from influincing an election in a monetary method does not prevent them from disseminating their opinion on the matter in a public forum. It's similar to time/place/manner restrictions on free speech. They can speak their minds, but the government is allowed to place reasonable restrictions on it when there is a compelling government interest at stake. I can think of no more compelling and viewpoint-neutral government interest than balanced elections. I think nearly every American outside of the pure libertarians recognizes the issue with permitting corporate money to influence politics (especially in our political system where money makes a HUGE difference). It's more like a time/place/manner issue in that they should be free to yell what they want from the sidelines. I don't think it's unreasonable or unconstitutional. | ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
 | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On March 28 2012 15:06 tree.hugger wrote: I should remember to not argue with people on the internet. I was halfway through writing a long post, and then I realized, it wasn't going to convince anyone. All of you who've made it this far already have opinions, and internet opinions never change, so what's the point? Because, at least from my understanding, the conversation on this is actually being held by rather intelligent people. | ||
|
RandomAccount#49059
United States2140 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby4547 Liquid`RaSZi2575 FrodaN1512 Beastyqt914 B2W.Neo415 Pyrionflax373 shahzam340 ArmadaUGS130 QueenE76 Livibee74 minikerr16 |
|
PiGosaur Cup
SOOP
OSC
OSC
SOOP
The PondCast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
IPSL
DragOn vs Sziky
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
