What do you think will be the outcome of this case? will SCOTUS strike down the mandate or not?
Obamacare
- Thread starter Straight Shooter
- Start date
-
- Tags
- obama 2012
C
cindy CD/TV
Guest
Health care reform is ABSOLUTELY needed in this country ... but "Obamacare" is not the way. Cover American citizens (I emphasize this point, American) who need help. But the rest of us don't need to be roped into and ****** to buy something from the federal government. If this is allowed to happen, then where does this kind of intrusion into our private lives end? I'm certain we can help cover the medical needs of Americans who need it -- without placing everyone else into economic bondage.
:2 cents:
:2 cents:
Ace Bandage
The one and only.
I'm hoping it will be stricken down. I'm not really interested in debating the pros and cons on here again, just suffice to say that I'm against it.
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my ******'s Basement
I can't see the SCOTUS ruling in favour of it.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Rep for a good call. Yeah, I agree that it comes down to Kennedy. My wild ass guess is that the mandate will be struck down and most of the rest will stand.
Yes
It's funny to see the ENTIRE media machine swing in different directions like a schizophrenic depending on the moment. I don't think the tough grilling in court the last two days indicated a ruling for or against, I think it was the court doing its duty, the due dilligence of making the government defend itself from even the harshest scrutiny before deserving a verdict.
I myself am somewhat on the fence about the mandate, ultimately I think it's Roberts and Kennedy who'll be the key. Neither of them is particularly partisan and in the few months they have to reach a ruling, will duly deliberate and may swing any which way. I have a feeling Kennedy will edge barely toward the 4 liberal justices on this one, provided they agree to a majority opinion that, like Bush v. Gore, deliberately states this is not applicable precedent for other areas of law.
I myself am somewhat on the fence about the mandate, ultimately I think it's Roberts and Kennedy who'll be the key. Neither of them is particularly partisan and in the few months they have to reach a ruling, will duly deliberate and may swing any which way. I have a feeling Kennedy will edge barely toward the 4 liberal justices on this one, provided they agree to a majority opinion that, like Bush v. Gore, deliberately states this is not applicable precedent for other areas of law.
How?
The cost of private insurance has already placed a ton of us in economic bondage.
Mine's $780 per month. Thankfully I can afford that, but many people can't.
Facetious
Moderated
That might not be half bad actually, but how could they possibly fund it without a mandate? Also, wasn't our individual annual payment to the government (for Obamacare) supposed to be enforced under the authority of the tax code?
If so, that would be so unwelcoming. Could you imagine, ''Pay up or else... we're gonna sick our newly hired irs agents on your investment portfolio.''
Lastly, I'd love to see the list of all the parties who have requested that they be granted an Obama health care bill amnesty. Last I read, there were about a thousand obama health care bill exemptions. That doesn't sit right with me, particularly if the exemption is granted on religious grounds.
Oh ****, one more rant, sorry... The last thing that doesn't sit right with me (at the moment) is the fact that all members in both houses of congress along with their immediate families (and I'm sure just about everybody in the president's cabinet as well) will become automatic exemptions should justice Kennedy become the 5th deciding vote in favor of this bill.
Who is Nancy Pelosi to be telling us how great this health care bill is when she's exempt?!
I'm either way on this one. I feel like its such a swing vote it could go either way at the final hour. I honestly wish we could do a healthcare do-over. Everybody agrees the system is broke and nobody liked the fix we got. But, it doesn't seem like congress if very good at getting thigns done these days.
I do, I just don't feel like writing the Affordable Care Act. I'll just refer to it as the ACA now. Happy?
Harley Spencer
Verified Performer
Right. I could definitely not afford $780/month. That's insane! I hardly make that much per month as it is.
The funny thing about all this is that Conservatives are now against something they have promoted for years. Individual Mandate was the free enterprise option to single payer as the Heritage Foundation put it. Heritage Foundation worked with Mitt Romney to implement it in MA, Gingrich was for the same thing. Now all of a sudden, regulation that makes people buy something in the market is worse than regulation which makes them pay taxes and then giving everyone the same product - which is what a single payer, a public option or Medicare For All will do.
If only Obama could have chosen Romney to make the case for the mandate instead of Verrilli.
Premium Link Upgrade
If only Obama could have chosen Romney to make the case for the mandate instead of Verrilli.
Premium Link Upgrade
Conservatives also often say they favor universal coverage. But the only ways to achieve universal coverage are to give coverage to everyone, which costs money, or induce everyone to buy it, which also costs money. Republicans haven’t been able to coalesce behind a workable and enactable plan for universal coverage, probably because any such plan would cost a lot of money. So conservatives can say they want to repeal "Obamacare", but my question to them is what is your plan?
If this does go down it will just show why Obama and the democrats shouldn't of half-assed it and got weak willed and caved in to republicans when they came up with the law. If they would have buckled down and socialized medicine or at least made a single payer universal health insurance system they wouldn't be in the mess of ******* people to buy anything because then not only would the system make more sense, be more ethical and moral, but it wouldn't be unlike any other program provided by tax dollars.
C
cindy CD/TV
Guest
Not to be snarky, but your insurance plan just sucks! Let me guess, a steep cost but too little bang for your buck? Is it through your employer or are you going it alone? I live in Mass. EVERYONE here must have insurance or suffer a big tax penalty. Thanks, Mitt!
Instead of flushing taxpayer money down the drain on bullshit "green energy" companies, how about putting that cash toward covering the approx. 30 to 35 million people who are uninsured? I'm not talking about you and me and OUR high premiums, just the AMERICANS who have NO coverage now. And please understand, it shouldn't be a permanent benefit. People are much better off paying their own way rather than relying on the government to be their nursemaids. Always. If the assholes in Washington would just agree on some fundamental issues, like tort reform and allowing interstate health insurance sales, for example. Pool_hustler, the latter could really help someone like you because you could shop outside your state to get a more competitive, lower rate. Instead of doing these things, Congress wastes OUR money on boondoggles like Solyndra, cap-and-trade and "stimulus" economic "aid" to states that just turned around and used the bulk of it to pay contracted union raises and perks.
In a neighboring town here in Massachusetts, one town for fiscal 2012 devoted 70 PERCENT of it's entire operating budget to just the school dept. The rest of the entire town lived on only 30 percent. And this is just one example, this trend repeats itself all over the state. So, of that 70 percent, more than 90 percent went to pay teacher salaries, contractual 3-5% YEARLY raises (do YOU get a raise every year?), step-and-lane increases and so-called professional development. In effect, the vast majority of the town's budget existed merely to pay teacher salaries. It's the biggest scam you can imagine -- and it's being perpetrated in every single town and city in the country. The teacher unions always win because whenever someone tries bring them to heel, the reps scream and whine about "harming our ********'s future." As soon as they say that, they usually get what they demand: money that comes via state taxes AND so-called federal aid.
The point is: This MASSIVE sum of money would be better spent helping sick people than giving a raise to someone who only works 9 months per year. :2 cents:
Rattrap
Doesn't feed trolls and would appreciate it if you
I'm curious if anybody knows this (I certainly don't, which is why I'm asking), but is there any particular legal reason why an individual state couldn't adopt a universal healthcare system like Canada's or like some European countries? I suppose that's the direction Romney took Massachusetts, though it doesn't sound the same (though again, I'm really not educated on the subject).
The Federal government providing universal healthcare seems, to me, akin to the EU providing healthcare in each of its countries. Seems a lot more effective to let the individual countries (or States) do their own thing...or not, if the voters in each state decide otherwise.
The Federal government providing universal healthcare seems, to me, akin to the EU providing healthcare in each of its countries. Seems a lot more effective to let the individual countries (or States) do their own thing...or not, if the voters in each state decide otherwise.
Similar threads
