Sign in to follow this  
wiegie

Obamacare is upheld

Recommended Posts

You all know my views in to this whole healthcare deal and know my political views. I am sadden at our SC's ruling and I truly believe in my heart that they are completely wrong. I am not against providing healthcare to everyone - I am against how this was structured and punched through the system. There are so many different ways we could have set up a universal healthcare system. IMO all this does is guarentee the insurance companies 40 million more customers. All of that being said, our SC (who know a hellofa lot more about the law and Constitution than I do) made its ruling so instead of stomping my foot and complaining, I am accepting that perhaps I am wrong in my views, washing my hands of the topic and moving on. It is what it is and nothing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many different ways we could have set up a universal healthcare system.

Could you provide us one or two examples that you think would have been better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I made it abundantly clear that I didn't care about discussing the constitutionality that none of us are qualified to discuss

 

Wouldn't the Supreme Court Justices be the most qualified to discuss this? Seeing how the corp personhood vote went, its seems like the majority will do all they can to filate big business and the right. Seeing how this all turned out, it also seems like this is probably and open and shut case.

 

Any chance of Paul getting nominated to the bench?

Edited by Duchess Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you provide us one or two examples that you think would have been better?

 

 

I did a post on it a while ago (queue Big John). If Big John can't find it I'll dig it up when I get back from Vacation. It was just my stab at a system that didn't impose a living tax or exceed Congress' powers with interstate commerce by taking some of the defense budget and applying it to a healthcare program for those without insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I made it abundantly clear that I didn't care about discussing the constitutionality that none of us are qualified to discuss,

 

 

Then it's awfully odd you felt the need to respond to my post. You, my friend, have some serious innernet envy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did a post on it a while ago (queue Big John). If Big John can't find it I'll dig it up when I get back from Vacation. It was just my stab at a system that didn't impose a living tax or exceed Congress' powers with interstate commerce by taking some of the defense budget and applying it to a healthcare program for those without insurance.

 

 

:pc:Closest i found

Edited by Big John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the Supreme Court Justices be the most qualified to discuss this? Seeing how the corp personhood vote went, its seems like the majority will do all they can to filate big business and the right. Seeing how this all turned out, it also seems like this is probably and open and shut case.

 

Any chance of Paul getting nominated to the bench?

 

 

That's a great point DJ. So the lefties are all great with the SC for upholding obamessiahcare but NOT with the corp personhood thing. They are (I think you meant to say fellating) "filate big business and the right." in that case. :thinking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a great point DJ. So the lefties are all great with the SC for upholding obamessiahcare but NOT with the corp personhood thing. They are (I think you meant to say fellating) "filate big business and the right." in that case. :thinking:

 

 

I believe that they are all activists. I am for the Affordable Healthcare Act but against a company being treated as a person - and being allowed to invest unlimited funds into putting a guy in office who will change laws for them on account of it. Its similar to how I feel on politics. I believe that all politicians are corrupt and in the job of staying in power.

 

I just am just a bit better with the left's shadiness, than I am the rights. It seems that they make decisions more to secure votes, whereas the right makes decisions more to secure money. An oversimplification, sure, but that is the way it seems.

 

My point was - if one of the rights big wigs on the court voted for this - there was probably a reason for it. You have to figure anybody if he could have voted against it, he would have.

Edited by Duchess Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought the bolded was an interesting thought by Conservative columnist Hugh Hewitt:

 

The decision of the Court, specifically the Chief Justice's opinion, is so unexpected that it will take some time to absorb and analyze.

 

First thoughts:

 

The Chief Justice's opinion of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause is all that could be asked of from an originalist. Long may this portion of the opinion control lower courts.

 

The Chief Justice's decision to embrace the taxing power as a justification for upholding Obamacare will be debated a hundred years down the road in institutional terms --did he find a way to uphold the Act so as not to damage the Court? etc-- but in pragmatic impact it is a disaster for the country if Governor Romney does not become President Romney and with a majority sufficiently large to repeal the Act.

 

The Chief Justice's decision greatly complicates the process of judicial selection down the road for any Republican president but especially Romney as every conservative will be waving this judicial equivalent of a bloody flag for decades to come.

 

The Chief Justice's decision is the consequence of his personal integrity as it would have been much, much easier for him to rule the other way. Critics of him will have to consider what they would have done if they believed the mandate to have been justified by the taxing power.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought the bolded was an interesting thought by Conservative columnist Hugh Hewitt:

 

 

I disagree with that assessment entirely. He took the easy way out as it would have been WAY ballsier for the Chief Justice to cast the deciding vote on a case that would upend a law passed by Congress. If the vote had been 5-3 against without him, he'd have cast against (to make it 6-3) and written the majority opinion in a way to mitigate the blow (fix issues regarding precedence on the decision if not give Congress hints on how to fix the law).

 

In this case, with the justices split 4-4, the path of least resistance is to vote to uphold (and again be put in the position to write the majority opinion outlining specifics of what/why on this ruling for future incidents of precedence). Even if I'm not the happiest about how the process to get to this point has been handled, he did the right thing.

 

I can't recall off the top of my head a 5-4 decision to wipe out a law passed by Congress. The two examples from the New Deal that pop up all the time (the NRA and AAA) were like 9-0 and 6-3 decisions, I think.

 

If we have any legal beagles that love constitutional law, I'd be curious how this decision fits in with two other similar cases in the past (South Dakota vs. Dole and United States vs. Butler). The former covered the federal government witholding benefits from states to incentivize behavior from the states (similar to the Medicaid part of the ruling, but ruled opposite in this case) and the latter covered the federal government exerting control over markets via taxation/subsidies (similar to the mandate part of the ruling, but again, ruled opposite in this case).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I can't recall off the top of my head a 5-4 decision to wipe out a law passed by Congress. The two examples from the New Deal that pop up all the time (the NRA and AAA) were like 9-0 and 6-3 decisions, I think.

 

 

Citizens United was a 5-4 decision to overturn McCain-Feingold

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citizens United was a 5-4 decision to overturn McCain-Feingold

 

http://en.wikipedia....tion_Commission

 

 

I guess I hadn't mentally lumped that in the same sort of bucket as the health care act or other more sweeping pieces of legislation (partly because it was more of an amendment to previous legislation and parly because it was much more narrowly focused).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I guess I hadn't mentally lumped that in the same sort of bucket as the health care act or other more sweeping pieces of legislation (partly because it was more of an amendment to previous legislation and parly because it was much more narrowly focused).

 

 

You don't think that citizens united overturning a bi partisan bill that tried to eliminate the buying and selling of politicians was in the same bucket?

 

:thinking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

:coffee: if ya have yer health ya have everything, where's that slacker Captain Obvious :shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think that citizens united overturning a bi partisan bill that tried to eliminate the buying and selling of politicians was in the same bucket?

 

:thinking:

 

 

The creation of the AAA, the NRA, and the PPACA had direct effect on people (as opposed to the indirect effect of McCain-Feingold), and the fact that the previously mentioned were much bigger deals in terms of Congressional use of power and their perception of being keystone pieces of Presidential legacy (again, very much UNLIKE McCain-Feingold). So, yes... I had them in different mental buckets.

 

I love how you loaded the question, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Observation (which may not be grounded in fact):

 

Chief Justice Roberts did something today that directly benefit Republicans (the party of the President that nominated him), but took a big risk (besides the risk to his conservative reputation) in doing so.

 

Gift to the Republicans -- His majority opinion gutted the mechanism the Democrats had planned on using to fund the action, thereby making the actual implementation of the law much more divisive (potentially), which will favor the Republicans in every election until they can over turn it (if ever), directly benefitting the Republicans for POTUS, the House and the Senate in every federal and state election due to happen this fall and in the future beyond that. By declaring it a tax, the middle class and lower-middle class voters are not going to be happy at all about how this hits their pocket book, and they very well change their vote as a result.

 

Risk --- Institutionalizing a mechanism whereby the federal government has health records of every citizen, creating a myriad of unforseen opportunities for people of every political persuasion to use that information for personal gain, revenge, scrutiny, etc. If knowledge is power, he just handed a ton of power to the federal government. A further risk was set up by establishing a precedent whereby the federal government can tax for any action or non-action taken (or not taken) by any citizen, group of citizens or the citizenry as a whole.

Edited by muck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lest we forget this universal health care stuff has been a issue 77 years in the making. Roberts knew what he was doing, right, left or wrong he was correct in saying they are interpreting the law, not enforcing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Observation (which may not be grounded in fact):

 

Chief Justice Roberts did something today that directly benefit Republicans (the party of the President that nominated him), but took a big risk (besides the risk to his conservative reputation) in doing so.

 

Gift to the Republicans -- His majority opinion gutted the mechanism the Democrats had planned on using to fund the action, thereby making the actual implementation of the law much more divisive (potentially), which will favor the Republicans in every election until they can over turn it (if ever), directly benefitting the Republicans for POTUS, the House and the Senate in every federal and state election due to happen this fall and in the future beyond that. By declaring it a tax, the middle class and lower-middle class voters are not going to be happy at all about how this hits their pocket book, and they very well change their vote as a result.

 

Risk --- Institutionalizing a mechanism whereby the federal government has health records of every citizen, creating a myriad of unforseen opportunities for people of every political persuasion to use that information for personal gain, revenge, scrutiny, etc. If knowledge is power, he just handed a ton of power to the federal government. A further risk was set up by establishing a precedent whereby the federal government can tax for any action or non-action taken (or not taken) by any citizen, group of citizens or the citizenry as a whole.

 

 

I guess I need to read up on this more. What funding mechanism was gutted?

 

Also, the feds have already used the power of the tax code to punish or reward actions or Non-actions for years. This is really nothing new. Think tax credits and deductions for incentivizing certain behaviors. All the would have had to do here was raise income tax rates to cover the costs and give tax credits for those that purchase insurance. It's all the same in the end, just semantics.

Edited by CaP'N GRuNGe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Observation (which may not be grounded in fact):

 

Chief Justice Roberts did something today that directly benefit Republicans (the party of the President that nominated him), but took a big risk (besides the risk to his conservative reputation) in doing so.

 

Gift to the Republicans -- His majority opinion gutted the mechanism the Democrats had planned on using to fund the action, thereby making the actual implementation of the law much more divisive (potentially), which will favor the Republicans in every election until they can over turn it (if ever), directly benefitting the Republicans for POTUS, the House and the Senate in every federal and state election due to happen this fall and in the future beyond that. By declaring it a tax, the middle class and lower-middle class voters are not going to be happy at all about how this hits their pocket book, and they very well change their vote as a result.

 

Risk --- Institutionalizing a mechanism whereby the federal government has health records of every citizen, creating a myriad of unforseen opportunities for people of every political persuasion to use that information for personal gain, revenge, scrutiny, etc. If knowledge is power, he just handed a ton of power to the federal government. A further risk was set up by establishing a precedent whereby the federal government can tax for any action or non-action taken (or not taken) by any citizen, group of citizens or the citizenry as a whole.

 

 

Thank you, George Will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, George Will.

 

 

:lol:

 

I'm not sure why there is a need to read into Roberts motivation for his decision. Isn't it most likely he was simply doing his job as a justice (much like 2 liberal judges going against the state medicare portion of the law)? I mean, justices bucking partisan lines isn't necessarily anything new (minus hacks like Scalia).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't think that citizens united overturning a bi partisan bill that tried to eliminate the buying and selling of politicians was in the same bucket?

 

:thinking:

 

 

I did not think it was meant to eliminate the buying of politicians. I thought it was an attempt to regulate the marketplace and set the standard currency for doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, George Will.

 

 

LOL.

 

 

Wasn't it a "small-gov't conservative" that was trying to get his mitts on the records of what women have had abortions?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

I'm not sure why there is a need to read into Roberts motivation for his decision. Isn't it most likely he was simply doing his job as a justice (much like 2 liberal judges going against the state medicare portion of the law)? I mean, justices bucking partisan lines isn't necessarily anything new (minus hacks like Scalia).

 

 

No. muck has explained that Roberts has not done his job; rather, he has played a really coy political move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure I would have felt better about things if the individual mandate and/or the state medicare mandates would have been summarily rejected. still though, I am kind of impressed by what the court, and more specifically chief justice Roberts, has done here. he managed to keep the court somewhat apolitical and "above the fray", which is actually kind of a big deal. policy is and largely should be left to the legislature. as it should be. yet they still annonced fairly boldly that there ARE limits to the what the government is allowed to do under the commerce clause. One can question how meaningful that is if the government is still allowed to do whatever the hell it wants under the constitution if it just calls it a tax, but it's still a pretty big deal in con-law history. if you can step back and see the big picture, potentially this really is not such a bad day for advocates of limited government.

 

Obamacare was already a wounded political animal. the USSC ruling got a couple more nicks in without delivering the coup de grace. the ruling just made the 2012 election all about obamacare. we'll see if that's such a great triumph for its advocates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The creation of the AAA, the NRA, and the PPACA had direct effect on people (as opposed to the indirect effect of McCain-Feingold), and the fact that the previously mentioned were much bigger deals in terms of Congressional use of power and their perception of being keystone pieces of Presidential legacy (again, very much UNLIKE McCain-Feingold). So, yes... I had them in different mental buckets.

 

I love how you loaded the question, though.

 

 

Fair enough

 

:fishy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.