EPTThe 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 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On July 02 2012 05:55 xDaunt wrote: For what it is worth, I think that the Court gets a rather unfairly bad rap for being "political." For the most part, the judges do a good job of deciding cases strictly on their views of the law. Really, it is the media's coverage of a handful of high profile cases that creates this "the Court is political" business. I'm a little skeptical of this to be honest. I mean that Medal of Valor act went through by the First Amendment by 6-3? So three of the Justices said the First Amendment doesn't cover lying about a medal? I understand that the cases they get are pretty controversial, but I would think a lot more of their cases wouldn't be so damn narrow if they aren't "political." But I do agree that it gets too much hype about how "political" they are. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Fresh evidence has surfaced regarding suspicions that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote on health care reform. CBS News reports that Roberts initially sided with the court's four conservative members to overturn President Barack Obama's individual mandate. After changing his mind, Roberts fended off a month of efforts to sway him back to the other side, headed by Justice Anthony Kennedy. "He was relentless," a source told CBS regarding Kennedy's push. "He was very engaged in this." In addition to private jostling within the Supreme Court, it appears that the public spotlight was a factor. The CBS report points to how Roberts pays attention to media coverage. With his court's reputation on the line, one source suggested that the chief justice became "wobbly" in the eyes of his conservative counterparts. Source | ||
|
Jisall
United States2054 Posts
I wouldn't weigh to much into this. I am against the Healthcare plan, but you can't expect the judges to be super-humans. I would assume this to be part of the regular back and forth. People are digging to much into this. The judges have decided, we will see how the next administration deals with it (If Obama or Romney wins). Getting around it calling it a tax (I would relate it to a sin-tax) is clever. The people in charge will keep debating it. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On July 02 2012 06:05 DoubleReed wrote: I'm a little skeptical of this to be honest. I mean that Medal of Valor act went through by the First Amendment by 6-3? So three of the Justices said the First Amendment doesn't cover lying about a medal? I understand that the cases they get are pretty controversial, but I would think a lot more of their cases wouldn't be so damn narrow if they aren't "political." But I do agree that it gets too much hype about how "political" they are. Just last week they voted 9-0 to uphold Citizen's United, a far more "political" issue. A lot of the vote splitting has to do with constitutional interpretation, which happens to follow a nearly even split. And the interpretations tend to follow political ideologies. But it's not the politics, but how they view the constitution. Most of their opinions on the matter are well known whether through books or prior decisions they've written. | ||
|
imareaver3
United States906 Posts
On July 02 2012 08:06 BluePanther wrote: Just last week they voted 9-0 to uphold Citizen's United, a far more "political" issue. A lot of the vote splitting has to do with constitutional interpretation, which happens to follow a nearly even split. And the interpretations tend to follow political ideologies. But it's not the politics, but how they view the constitution. Most of their opinions on the matter are well known whether through books or prior decisions they've written. The Montana case was 5-4. Do your homework. | ||
|
shawster
Canada2485 Posts
interesting graphic for the current topic of discussion this was robert's 1st time siding with the "liberals" on a 5-4 | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
my bad. i still stand by my point however. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On July 02 2012 08:44 shawster wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/06/28/us/supreme-court-liberal-wing-5-4-decisions.html?hp interesting graphic for the current topic of discussion this was robert's 1st time siding with the "liberals" on a 5-4 The hell kind of article is that? Why doesn't it include the other side as well? What, do the liberals never go over to the 'conservative' side? Blaaaaaargblblbl. | ||
|
imareaver3
United States906 Posts
On July 02 2012 09:38 DoubleReed wrote: The hell kind of article is that? Why doesn't it include the other side as well? What, do the liberals never go over to the 'conservative' side? Blaaaaaargblblbl. The Court contains 4 liberals and 5 conservatives. Therefore, a 5-4 decision that contains all conservatives contains no liberals. If a liberals go to the conservative side, then there's either a conservative on the liberal side (begging the question of which side is which) or the decision is not 5-4 and therefore less interesting. If you want exhaustive statistics, go here. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 01 2012 19:51 Kukaracha wrote: They didn't exactly kill them, but, Not only that, but all habitants left the western side of town, and nearly a fifth of the population developped cancer as a direct consquence. According to wikipedia they made the PCB's between 1930 and 1977... kinda ancient history IMO. Interesting to know never the less! | ||
|
Sakenator
United States45 Posts
On July 02 2012 02:23 farvacola wrote: Pneumonia is a major cause of death amongst all age groups throughout the world, and accounts for 4 million deaths annually. Now I realize you've described a fair bit of inefficiency within the clinical setting, but I'm not sure trivializing the disease is the way to go. In fact, influenza/pneumonia is the 8th leading cause of death here in the US. That being said, my entire family is in medicine, and that hospital systems need retooling is certainly an accepted fact. The reason it is the 8th leading cause of death is because it kills many of the elderly who have many comorbities that contribute to the complications of the disease. Most healthy young people that develop pneumonia are treated as outpatient and do fine. I am in no way trivializing the disease I am merely using it as an example to make my point. There is no way that pneumonia should be costing that much money to treat. And in many cases even if you treat the patient in my example the truth of the matter is her life expectancy is at the very best 3-5 years. So instead of using that money to help preventive medicine so that 30 year old individuals do not die of diabetes or heart disease that could prolong their lives by 20-30+ years we spend all that money fighting a battle that we can not win. That is my point. The reason american healthcare is such an inefficient system is that we only treat disease we do very little to prevent the disease from occurring which is truly the most important part. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18809 Posts
On July 02 2012 12:03 Sakenator wrote: The reason it is the 8th leading cause of death is because it kills many of the elderly who have many comorbities that contribute to the complications of the disease. Most healthy young people that develop pneumonia are treated as outpatient and do fine. I am in no way trivializing the disease I am merely using it as an example to make my point. There is no way that pneumonia should be costing that much money to treat. And in many cases even if you treat the patient in my example the truth of the matter is her life expectancy is at the very best 3-5 years. So instead of using that money to help preventive medicine so that 30 year old individuals do not die of diabetes or heart disease that could prolong their lives by 20-30+ years we spend all that money fighting a battle that we can not win. That is my point. The reason american healthcare is such an inefficient system is that we only treat disease we do very little to prevent the disease from occurring which is truly the most important part. Well I couldn't agree with you more in that regard. From a purely medical perspective, effective collective preventative care is best administered through some sort of universal healthcare system, the US's ridiculous cost per visit a good example of how not to do it. It always costs more to provide tertiary medical services. | ||
|
Epocalypse
Canada319 Posts
On July 02 2012 12:50 farvacola wrote: Well I couldn't agree with you more in that regard. From a purely medical perspective, effective collective preventative care is best administered through some sort of universal healthcare system, the US's ridiculous cost per visit a good example of how not to do it. It always costs more to provide tertiary medical services. Don't forget that America did not have private healthcare before ObamaCare... Insurance has been regulated for a while now and thanks to it, costs have been driven up. So really were talking about socialized medicine vs. a more aggressive socialized medicine. | ||
|
Epocalypse
Canada319 Posts
http://bit.ly/MmDi0P | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
On July 02 2012 15:07 Epocalypse wrote: Comprehensive List of Obamacare Tax Hikes in Order of Effective Date http://bit.ly/MmDi0P Despite the obvious bias, this all seems pretty reasonable. Programs cost money and a few billion dollars in various taxes is reasonable. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18809 Posts
On July 02 2012 15:06 Epocalypse wrote: Don't forget that America did not have private healthcare before ObamaCare... Insurance has been regulated for a while now and thanks to it, costs have been driven up. So really were talking about socialized medicine vs. a more aggressive socialized medicine. I realize you'd like the argument to remain within a frame in which all regulation is created equal, only so that the obvious links between insurance lobbyism and the sad state of healthcare in the United States remain in the background. Private corporate interests, whether through the direct action of insurance rate hikes, selective coverage application or favorable deals brokered through lobbyist backdoor dealings, are playing an arguably primary role in keeping the system broken, and yet you only want to talk of the evil of government? Is government inefficiency a terrible thing that needs to be reeled in? Absolutely. But you've misdiagnosed the problem if you stop the inquiry there. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/health-care-reform/2009/07/health_care_continues_its_inte.html Too much money is allowed to be spent in an incredibly shady way, plain and simple. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On July 02 2012 15:07 Epocalypse wrote: Comprehensive List of Obamacare Tax Hikes in Order of Effective Date http://bit.ly/MmDi0P We can make health care cheaper if we tax companies involved in producing health care equipment. Makes sense. | ||
|
DocTheMedic
United States79 Posts
I wouldn't put too much faith in that source. It's all speculation. What matters is the argument, which is sound by 5 of the 9 justices. Any research into their intentions is judging them on their character rather then their legal proof. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On July 02 2012 04:38 Kaitlin wrote: But that's exactly what "excise taxes" are. Punishing behavior, through taxes, that the government considers bad. Why you find it necessary to calculate the "benefit" of smokers dying early is beyond me. You seem to think the world is fair and perfect. In reality, it's not about "how much someone's health care costs over a life time", it's "smoking causes cancer" so non-smokers shouldn't have to pay for costs associated with cancer treatment for smokers. I am not arguing that smokers should not be subject to a sin tax. I am not arguing that the world is perfect. I am arguing that "smokers life time health costs are higher" is an assumption. I might go further and say that trying to fold every aspect of a citizens life that effects their health into a universal health insurance plan will result in forms like phone books and an inflated bureaucracy wasting time and money. Or were we just going to target smokers? Or was it drug users in general? Or was it anyone who does something which they enjoy but which harms their health? | ||
| ||
