|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
From SCOTUSBlog:
10:08 Amy Howe: The individual mandate survives as a tax. 10:09 Amy Howe: It's very complicated, so we're still figuring it out. 10:10 Kali: We are still here. Don't worry. 10:10 Tom: So the mandate is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court.
|
Via scotusBlog
Tom: So the mandate is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court. Via CNN
Individual mandate struck down Huh?
|
|
On June 28 2012 23:11 ghost_403 wrote:Via scotusBlog Show nested quote +Tom: So the mandate is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court. Via CNN Huh? It will take 30 mins or so for everyone to figure it out. Just give it some time.
|
Wait the court REWROTE the mandate as a tax? Can they do that? That can't be right...
|
BOOM!
Take your healthcare and enjoy it, you stinking bastards!
|
On June 28 2012 23:12 xDaunt wrote: Wow. Well, you were dead wrong.
But even I'm surprised it survived. I thought it was unlikely to survive.
This is very good.
|
Someone give me a link to the opinion. Still not seeing it on the website.
|
BUT I HAVE TO KNOW
ghost_403 begins foaming at the mouth
|
On June 28 2012 23:13 Defacer wrote: BOOM!
Take your healthcare and enjoy it, you stinking bastards! HAHAHAHA.
Yes, indeed. Welcome to the rest of the civilized world.
SCOTUSBlog:
10:13 Tom: The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.
|
On June 28 2012 23:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 23:06 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 23:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2012 22:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 21:43 BluePanther wrote:
It just sets a bad precedent, because if they find this legal, the next time they use this method it may not be on a product as useful to everyone. Every other advanced country in the world has universal healthcare. So how bad is the precedent really? As has been explained ad nauseum throughout the thread, this isn't just about healthcare. In fact, this case isn't really about healthcare at all. I'm disagreeing with his argument which IS about healthcare, and in particular the precedent that it sets. If you don't want to argue about this point, then stop talking. No, his argument is not about healthcare. Go re-read it again: "It just sets a bad precedent, because if they find this legal, the next time they use this method it may not be on a product as useful to everyone." We in the Netherlands have to buy health insurance. Never has something been proposed that makes us buy a product that is not useful to everyone. You're just scare mongering.
Basic health insurance (which covers everything a person needs) costs me about €100/month which is about $125. How much does such insurance costs in the US?
|
Haha wow, it's been upheld? I totally didn't expect that.
|
|
On June 28 2012 23:15 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 23:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2012 23:06 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 23:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2012 22:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 21:43 BluePanther wrote:
It just sets a bad precedent, because if they find this legal, the next time they use this method it may not be on a product as useful to everyone. Every other advanced country in the world has universal healthcare. So how bad is the precedent really? As has been explained ad nauseum throughout the thread, this isn't just about healthcare. In fact, this case isn't really about healthcare at all. I'm disagreeing with his argument which IS about healthcare, and in particular the precedent that it sets. If you don't want to argue about this point, then stop talking. No, his argument is not about healthcare. Go re-read it again: "It just sets a bad precedent, because if they find this legal, the next time they use this method it may not be on a product as useful to everyone." We in the Netherlands have to buy health insurance. Never has something been proposed that makes us buy a product that is not useful to everyone. You're just scare mongering. You're missing the point so badly that it is hilarious.
|
IT will be intresting to see how they argue that the mandate can be viewed as a tax.
I'm guessing their is no exact definition of what a "tax" can be considered so thats where they found the wiggle room?
|
I still haven't seen the opinion, but it looks like I was half right. The mandate did not survive under the commerce clause. It survived under Article I tax powers.
|
WSJ:
A quick overview of the ruling: A divided Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s health-care law, in one of the most anticipated high-court rulings in a generation. The court said Congress was acting within its powers under the Constitution when it required most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty—the provision at the center of the two-year legal battle. It upheld the mandate as a tax, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Time for the tea party to start marching on the white house.
|
On June 28 2012 23:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 23:15 Thorakh wrote:On June 28 2012 23:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2012 23:06 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 23:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2012 22:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 21:43 BluePanther wrote:
It just sets a bad precedent, because if they find this legal, the next time they use this method it may not be on a product as useful to everyone. Every other advanced country in the world has universal healthcare. So how bad is the precedent really? As has been explained ad nauseum throughout the thread, this isn't just about healthcare. In fact, this case isn't really about healthcare at all. I'm disagreeing with his argument which IS about healthcare, and in particular the precedent that it sets. If you don't want to argue about this point, then stop talking. No, his argument is not about healthcare. Go re-read it again: "It just sets a bad precedent, because if they find this legal, the next time they use this method it may not be on a product as useful to everyone." We in the Netherlands have to buy health insurance. Never has something been proposed that makes us buy a product that is not useful to everyone. You're just scare mongering. You're missing the point so badly that it is hilarious. That is exactly the point. It's an argument about precedents. The argument wasn't based on whether it was constitutional or whether it's good public policy. The argument was that this is a slippery slope, but it's never been a slippery slope in any other country with universal coverage.
|
lol @ CNN for not having any idea of what's going on. NYT says upheld, 6-3, no links to the opinion as of yet AFAIK.
|
On June 28 2012 23:15 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 23:08 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2012 23:06 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 23:03 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2012 22:51 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 21:43 BluePanther wrote:
It just sets a bad precedent, because if they find this legal, the next time they use this method it may not be on a product as useful to everyone. Every other advanced country in the world has universal healthcare. So how bad is the precedent really? As has been explained ad nauseum throughout the thread, this isn't just about healthcare. In fact, this case isn't really about healthcare at all. I'm disagreeing with his argument which IS about healthcare, and in particular the precedent that it sets. If you don't want to argue about this point, then stop talking. No, his argument is not about healthcare. Go re-read it again: "It just sets a bad precedent, because if they find this legal, the next time they use this method it may not be on a product as useful to everyone." We in the Netherlands have to buy health insurance. Never has something been proposed that makes us buy a product that is not useful to everyone. You're just scare mongering.
Only is in the US are people this paranoid and have this little faith in actual democracy and their government. Today they're making us by healthcare, tomorrow, they'll make us buy broccolli!
But seriously, when you follow American's politics long enough, it's hard not to be skeptical.
Anyway, I think even the though the individual mandate is a clunky mechanism of expanding the risk pool so that health insurers can provide better coverage, it's a step. The American Health Care system needs serious reform.
|
|
|
|