EPTWith this outcome, everyone gets what they want: health care for the uninsured, something to be angry about for the right.
— @mattyglesias
Also good:
Saddest & most hilarious of trombones. RT @AriFleischer: I miss Justice Harriet Miers.
— @delrayser
The Affordable Healthcare Act in the U.S. Supreme Court -…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 | ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
With this outcome, everyone gets what they want: health care for the uninsured, something to be angry about for the right. — @mattyglesias Also good: Saddest & most hilarious of trombones. RT @AriFleischer: I miss Justice Harriet Miers. — @delrayser | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
1) The individual mandate was not valid under either the commerce clause and necessary and proper clause. This places new, distinct limits on federal power. 2) The Court noted that the tax penalty associated with not paying for insurance is not so high as to effectively remove any choice. This language creates a large opening for challenging future laws that are construed like the mandate. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:41 inzaneone wrote: Obamacare makes me have to buy insurance or face a penalty which is still extremely bad policy. if i were to buy insurance right now i would be spending money that i can't afford. don't know where the money tree is going to come from people to pay for it. they should have shoved it right back up obama's ass. since he is not my president Again, you seem to be misinformed. You would subsidized for the insurance if you can't afford it. | ||
|
inzaneone
United States18 Posts
| ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
McBengt
Sweden1684 Posts
The next Glenn Beck episode should be quite entertaining as well. | ||
|
inzaneone
United States18 Posts
| ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:47 Kaitlin wrote: Don't underestimate the importance of the Medicaid part being struck down. States can "opt out" of the expanded Medicaid portion, and many States will. This will leave the "poor" in those States without coverage in those states. This will create a flood of poor into the more liberal states and will blow up their budgets. How will it create a flood of poor people? They aren't going to just magically lift up and move to a better location. If they were capable of doing that they already would have. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:46 DoubleReed wrote: Again, you seem to be misinformed. You would subsidized for the insurance if you can't afford it. Only if the State you live in goes along with the expanded Medicaid provision. However, the States joining this lawsuit, and New Jersey and potentially others, are not likely to expand their coverage. So, if you want this subsidy, you have to find a state that offers it. Over time, this effect will blow huge holes in the budgets of these States. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:48 Stratos_speAr wrote: How will it create a flood of poor people? They aren't going to just magically lift up and move to a better location. If they were capable of doing that they already would have. If they have Health Care in one state, but not another, what do you think will happen ? | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:35 inzaneone wrote: My two cents for what is worth How could one of the justices that before she was a on the court. She worked for the govermanent arguing for Obamacare rule on this. Is this not a breech of ethics? If you think the government knows how to run or can run heath insurance. Think again as a veteran that goes through the VA for his medical. I can tell you that is the worst thing that they you could have. The only thing its good for is a annual physical and that it. If you are sick or need something good luck getting the treatment you need since it is always at least 2 weeks before you can get in to see a medical person. That's not what this healthcare law does. The government won't be running our hospitals or creating a NHS. It will make sure everyone has private insurance. TRICARE Prime might be a closer analogy. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:50 Kaitlin wrote: If they have Health Care in one state, but not another, what do you think will happen ? You are completely failing to understand how reality works. First off, it is incredibly difficult to move. You need money, time, and resources to uplift yourself (and very likely some family/dependents) from where you live and find another place to go. Second, you need to be able to actually find a place to live and work. Third, this means leaving your family, friends, community, and culture behind. Healthcare will definitely not prompt the masses to suddenly leave these states. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:42 Stratos_speAr wrote: "Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clausewould give Congress the same license to regulate what people do notdo. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited andenumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.” Pp. 16–27." Important paragraph from the written ruling. Fearmongerers, you can take a breath. "(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibilitypayment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy healthinsurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40." Another important one explaining how it can be viewed as a tax. Wow. Their rationalization for upholding the ACA seems ... rational. Honestly, the partisan rhetoric, posturing and contortions from both parties during the election has made me so cynical, that seeing a thoughtful, reasonably objective argument of any position is a pleasant surprise! | ||
|
XenOmega
Canada2822 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:50 Kaitlin wrote: If they have Health Care in one state, but not another, what do you think will happen ? Then why doesn't those poors flooded into Canada? | ||
|
jpak
United States5045 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:55 XenOmega wrote: Then why doesn't those poors flooded into Canada? Because Canadians have beady little eyes, bobbing heads, and only one grand road going through it. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:55 XenOmega wrote: Then why doesn't those poors flooded into Canada? Every four years, I hear various American friends bitch and whine and say if so-and-so gets elected, they're moving to Canada. It never happens. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:52 Stratos_speAr wrote: You are completely failing to understand how reality works. First off, it is incredibly difficult to move. You need money, time, and resources to uplift yourself (and very likely some family/dependents) from where you live and find another place to go. Second, you need to be able to actually find a place to live and work. Third, this means leaving your family, friends, community, and culture behind. Healthcare will definitely not prompt the masses to suddenly leave these states. I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. The people on their way to liberal states won't be leaving any jobs behind, nor will they be seeking jobs in their new states. Only welfare and health care. It won't be any harder to relocate from state to state than it is to move from Mexico to the U.S., will it ? | ||
|
rredtooth
5464 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:57 Kaitlin wrote: I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. The people on their way to liberal states won't be leaving any jobs behind, nor will they be seeking jobs in their new states. Only welfare and health care. It won't be any harder to relocate from state to state than it is to move from Mexico to the U.S., will it ? because every immigrant from mexico is leeching off of US welfare and not contributing to the workforce amiright? | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On June 28 2012 23:57 Kaitlin wrote: I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. The people on their way to liberal states won't be leaving any jobs behind, nor will they be seeking jobs in their new states. Only welfare and health care. It won't be any harder to relocate from state to state than it is to move from Mexico to the U.S., will it ? Yes, because an American that is just missing healthcare gains far less compares to what he or she loses by moving when compared to someone trying to move here from Mexico, especially since those people will more than likely be leaving jobs behind. Many (some could argue the majority of) people that need this healthcare and would consider moving are underemployed, not necessarily unemployed, and so that part-time employment is incredibly crucial to their well-being. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
Oh man, today is a good day. Obama has officially completely changed the country for the better. Government intervention into the lives of the American people has taken a huge step forward and I couldn't be happier. Conservatives can fight progress all they want, but in the end, it happens. Delay, delay, delay, but never make a lasting difference. | ||
| ||
