On June 28 2012 13:25 BluePanther wrote: 5-4 with a split majority striking down the mandate. scalia and thomas will write own concurrences, a plurality by roberts/alito. not sure if kennedy will join but for predictions sake i will have him writing a 4th opinion striking it down. kennedy's opinion will be the binding one, whether it's his or roberts's.
all 4 libs will vote to dissent for every reason they can possibly think of, with a joint dissent in substance (maybe a few choice words in solo dissent)
i'm less sure of the others.
Well, I was perfect on the commerce clause part... (besides scalia not writing his own concurrance) Can't say I saw the tax part coming. I just kind of assumed they would not uphold it as a tax if they let it get past the AIA.
It's kind of surprising really... Even though this upholds the mandate, it's actually not a terrible opinion for the state's righters out there.
On June 29 2012 04:43 Defacer wrote: Oh man, this video is just too funny.
Wow. Its essentially Romney making an argument in favor of exactly what Republicans are mad at Obama about. He even goes so far as to make the exact same arguments in favor of the mandate that Obama does. Maybe Romney as president wouldn't be so bad, as it seems like he actually agrees with Obama
The idea for an individual mandate originally came from conservatives but was not adopted by all conservatives nor was it adopted as part of the Republican platform.
Republicans / conservatives are not monolithic in their ideas / beliefs.
Right, just pointing out that Romney fought for and defended what he is essentially running his campaign against right now.
Unless he's changed his position (I don't follow that closely) I think his criticism is more about a Federal mandate than a mandate in general and some of the program's specifics.
On June 29 2012 08:18 Epocalypse wrote: Seems timely to post a video as to why healthcare violates rights. http://bit.ly/LxDT9G
Yaron Brook, the author and creator of that video, is a very misguided man. From wikipedia, "Brook has stated that he does not believe regulation has any role to play in protecting the environment and believes human-originated climate change to be a conspiracy propagated by environmentalists. He has indicated that the conspiracy goes back decades, and that global warming is another in a line of failed scare stories, with preferential funding given to researchers promoting it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaron_Brook
On June 29 2012 08:18 Epocalypse wrote: Seems timely to post a video as to why healthcare violates rights. http://bit.ly/LxDT9G
Are you really bringing in Objectivist ideas into this? Really?
Look, I can get into Libertarianism. I really can. It actually has a solid foundation for a lot of things. It's cool, even if I don't think it's practical for everything. But the Ayn Rand center? Objectivism? Do you actually expect people to take you seriously?
Wow. Its essentially Romney making an argument in favor of exactly what Republicans are mad at Obama about. He even goes so far as to make the exact same arguments in favor of the mandate that Obama does. Maybe Romney as president wouldn't be so bad, as it seems like he actually agrees with Obama
The idea for an individual mandate originally came from conservatives but was not adopted by all conservatives nor was it adopted as part of the Republican platform.
Republicans / conservatives are not monolithic in their ideas / beliefs.
Right, just pointing out that Romney fought for and defended what he is essentially running his campaign against right now.
This is a blatant mis-statement.
State law and Federal law have two distinct standards. Far less conservatives would have an issue with a mandate if it was put into law by a state government.
"The political lesson is that “ObamaCare,” while spearheaded by the president, is not the product of “liberals” only. Conservatives played a significant role in paving the way to the legislation and in today’s court decision. Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, wrote the majority opinion. And, as Paul Hsieh explains, Mitt Romney, now the Republican candidate for president, spearheaded the individual mandate in Massachusetts, providing the model for ObamaCare."
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
On June 29 2012 08:29 Epocalypse wrote: "The political lesson is that “ObamaCare,” while spearheaded by the president, is not the product of “liberals” only. Conservatives played a significant role in paving the way to the legislation and in today’s court decision. Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, wrote the majority opinion. And, as Paul Hsieh explains, Mitt Romney, now the Republican candidate for president, spearheaded the individual mandate in Massachusetts, providing the model for ObamaCare."
You should have quoted the meaningless drivel that seems right out of a retarded Yoda's mouth in regards to the inherently evil relationship between altruism and collectivism. "Altruism leads to collectivism, collectivism leads to compulsion, compulsion leads to SUFFERING!"
On June 29 2012 08:35 NexRex wrote: To people saying, "I'm not paying for my neighbor's healthcare." I'm not paying for my neighbor's education.
I'm not sure what side you're even on, but you're clearly paying for your neighbor's education because the education raises its money through taxation.
Wow. Its essentially Romney making an argument in favor of exactly what Republicans are mad at Obama about. He even goes so far as to make the exact same arguments in favor of the mandate that Obama does. Maybe Romney as president wouldn't be so bad, as it seems like he actually agrees with Obama
The idea for an individual mandate originally came from conservatives but was not adopted by all conservatives nor was it adopted as part of the Republican platform.
Republicans / conservatives are not monolithic in their ideas / beliefs.
Right, just pointing out that Romney fought for and defended what he is essentially running his campaign against right now.
This is a blatant mis-statement.
State law and Federal law have two distinct standards. Far less conservatives would have an issue with a mandate if it was put into law by a state government.
Romney also used to defend the idea of an individual mandate at the federal level (even though his preference apparently went to states choosing their own plans).
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
Really, your post is confusing.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
Really, your post is confusing.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
Really, your post is confusing.
so just because they're already in loads of debt more debt isn't something to worry about? it's just another drop in the bucket then? disgusting. Corporatism won today, and it will continue to win unless people smarten up.
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
Really, your post is confusing.
so just because they're already in loads of debt more debt isn't something to worry about? it's just another drop in the bucket then? disgusting. Corporatism won today, and it will continue to win unless people smarten up.
Smarten us up then, oh wise one. What exactly are you trying to say?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
Really, your post is confusing.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
You don't understand what insurance is. Insurance is not "money in a pot that sick people take money out of". Insurance is pooling money to insure yourself against risk of future large costs. It has only been government intervention that has changed this. If you also can't see that the entire point was to give a huge gift to people with preexisting conditions and make other people pay for it then I don't even know where to start.
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: You are implying socialized health care does not have any down sides and demanding every one else justify their position. What do you tell the young people forced to subsidize the unhealthy? What do you tell the young person who is going to be priced out of education or forced to make other hard decisions now that their premium goes up? What do you tell the half of the population (men) who are not forced to subsidize the health care costs of the other half (women) even with young women out performing young men in education and earnings? Will all of this shifting of income damage nobody so you don't have to justify any of it? Now that the government is limiting the profits of health insurance companies, are you comfortable with highly skilled people avoiding the industry and moving to where the can make more money?
Huh? So the "unhealthy" are actually a social group, like "the poors"? I get sick maybe once a year, am I in this group? Do young people never get sick? Will they never get sick? Will they never join the "unhealthy" dark side? How many people will not go to college if they're missing a hundred bucks? Don't they already have a couple of thousands of debt? And what are you talking about, does this law treat men and women differently?
On June 29 2012 06:49 Romantic wrote: Hell, you could cut them a check yourself for their health care, but you probably won't, and that is just another of the problems with socialism. People start demanding someone else fix the problem and lose any sense of doing it themselves.
Well, I guess it's his taxes too. Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so. And this is not socialism, not by a long shot. Geez, if you live in the South Pole, it doesn't mean that anything north of you is the North Pole. There's a whole world in between.
Really, your post is confusing.
If you don't know what Obamacare does, don't tell me I am confusing when discussing what Obamacare does. The law prevents women from being charged more for insurance despite that fact women use more health care. Companies will do some combination of raising mens' premiums and lowering womens' premiums to bring the two in line.
"The unhealthy" refers to the people being subsidized; people who are sick and cannot get their preexisting condition covered by insurance (for obvious reasons, that wouldn't be insurance).
If you can dismiss the concerns of young people forced by law to subsidize people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take another loan for it, can I dismiss people with preexisting conditions by telling them to take out a loan?
Technically speaking, socialism is making sure that actually everyone who can writes a check does so.
No, it is not. Lol. Even if it were, that doesn't refute what I said about socialism reducing personal responsibility and action.
Again, you are already subsidizing people by having health insurance. That is what health insurance is. Everyone puts money in the pot for sick people to take money out of. Insurance, by definition, is a subsidy. They only way to avoid this is to not have any health insurance whatsoever, which means you are putting a burden on hospitals and such when you need healthcare and can't afford it. There is no possible way to abstain from the system, regardless of Obamacare existing or not. You are always paying for other people's healthcare.
Now that the mandate is upheld, you can't possibly argue about people with pre-existing conditions becoming freeloaders off of the healthy people on health insurance. They have to get health insurance too (or face a tax penalty).
Insurance isn't a subsidy. It is a way to pool risk. The subsidy is in pooling people with a high risk profile with those that have a low risk profile. In this way people at low risk for getting sick subsidize those at a high risk for getting sick.
EPT
