|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On June 28 2012 23:18 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 23:16 xDaunt wrote: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.
You're still missing the point, too, apparently.
|
On June 28 2012 23:18 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 23:16 xDaunt wrote: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.
Whoa there, in my country we have to buy candy every few days for our children. That's some terrible policy there bro.
On June 28 2012 23:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 23:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 23:16 xDaunt wrote: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. You're still missing the point, too, apparently.
Look, if people are missing the point, please explain it to them. >.> I'm pretty sure they took the quoted words exactly as it reads.
|
On June 28 2012 23:20 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 23:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 23:16 xDaunt wrote: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. Whoa there, in my country we have to buy candy every few days for our children. That's some terrible policy there bro. Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 23:20 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2012 23:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 23:16 xDaunt wrote: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. You're still missing the point, too, apparently. Look, if people are missing the point, please explain it to them. >.> I'm pretty sure they took the quoted words exactly as it reads.
I did repeatedly. I'm tired of wasting my breath on people that aren't interested in learning anything.
|
Sweet. The Republicans are going to be throwing a shit storm at this, should be interesting.
|
According my to my local media, it says the the bill has survived the Court
|
On June 28 2012 23:23 Attican wrote:
Sweet. The Republicans are going to be throwing a shit storm at this, should be interesting.
I'm expecting fox news commentators to set themselves on fire any minute now.
|
Doesnt this drastically effect the penalty with which people who don't purchase insurance will recieve?
|
- government makes people buy a product that's useful to everyone
- slippery slope argument "next time the government will make us buy a product that's not useful to everyone!"
- this hasn't happened in other countries where health insurance is mandatory (never has such a thing been proposed even)
- therefore it's just scaremongering
Explain how we're missing the point when I responded to the exact things which were said?
|
Then please don't add no content posts to the thread, xDaunt.
Looks like everything was upheld. Yay! Now if we can get a public option somewhere that would be awesome.
|
On June 28 2012 23:26 DoubleReed wrote:
Then please don't add no content posts to the thread, xDaunt.
Looks like everything was upheld. Yay! Now if we can get a public option somewhere that would be awesome.
EVERY PART of the Health care law?!
|
@jpak: Pretty much, as far as I can tell. Still waiting for a good article to go through the opinion.
|
On June 28 2012 23:25 DannyJ wrote:
Doesnt this drastically effect the penalty with which people who don't purchase insurance will recieve?
Yeah, basically how it works is that if you don't have health insurance, then you must pay a tax (which typically will be collected out of your refund). The core holding is that Congress's power to tax (and regulate behavior through taxation) is unlimited.
|
On June 28 2012 23:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 23:20 Zergneedsfood wrote:On June 28 2012 23:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 23:16 xDaunt wrote: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. Whoa there, in my country we have to buy candy every few days for our children. That's some terrible policy there bro. On June 28 2012 23:20 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2012 23:18 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 28 2012 23:16 xDaunt wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're still missing the point, too, apparently. Look, if people are missing the point, please explain it to them. >.> I'm pretty sure they took the quoted words exactly as it reads. I did repeatedly. I'm tired of wasting my breath on people that aren't interested in learning anything.
Yes, you did. But YOU missed the point.
|
|
|
On June 28 2012 23:25 Thorakh wrote:
- government makes people buy a product that's useful to everyone
- slippery slope argument "next time the government will make us buy a product that's not useful to everyone!"
- this hasn't happened in other countries where health insurance is mandatory (never has such a thing been proposed even)
- therefore it's just scaremongering
Explain how we're missing the point when I responded to the exact things which were said?
Exactly. Nice summary.
|
|
|
Justice Roberts is looking like Justice Souter Mk. II.
|
Pleasantly surprised. Will be interesting to see how the situation develops though.
|
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
THE TAX ARGUMENT WINS!
Who was the third party attorney who argued that point on day one?
EDIT: Via ScotusBlog's Amy Howe:
In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.
|
+ Show Spoiler +Via SCOTUSBlog: Amy Howe: In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.
e: sniped by tree.hugger. DAMN YOU TREEHUGGER
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
