• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House asks Supreme Court to rule on healthcare law

:confused: not politically - politically it just puts the energy back at the 2010 level. Either way, it's harder for him to get reelected.

which means ( and this i find interesting ) potentially, that's a secondary consideration.

I don't see how you get back to 2010 levels. If found constitutional, one of the GOP's key arguments against health care reform is rendered moot. Such was not the case in 2010.
 
Does anyone REALLY think that Scalia will allow the court to strike down a law requiring people to buy things? Seriously? It puts more money into the pockets of big business. This is right up his alley. And he usually gets what he wants.

I agree. This call to jump to the Supremes means that Obama's team has figured out how the final 5-4 vote is going to go.
 
I don't see how you get back to 2010 levels. If found constitutional, one of the GOP's key arguments against health care reform is rendered moot. Such was not the case in 2010.

If you think the passion against Obamacare was driven by its' constitutionality rather than it's massive expansion of government into our lives and our economy.....


trust me on this - if SCOTUS refuses to strike down Obamacare, it ignites conservatives and makes it quite clear to independents (who loathe the thing almost as much as independents do) that the only way out of it is to vote Obama out.
 
If my prayers are answered the Supreme Court will say HELL NO to Obama Care, and we can start on the road to the rest of thinking America to say NO to Obama next year, so that we can begin to heal our economy and end Obama's push for class warfare that could end in tragedy.
 
cpwill said:
If you think the passion against Obamacare was driven by its' constitutionality rather than it's massive expansion of government into our lives and our economy.....

The PASSION is stated by McConnell "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president"

As far as the 'massive' expansion of government into our lives and our economy, people pretty much like the things that are in the ACA.


cpwill said:
trust me on this
:wassat1:


cpwill said:
- if SCOTUS refuses to strike down Obamacare, it ignites conservatives and makes it quite clear to independents (who loathe the thing almost as much as independents do) that the only way out of it is to vote Obama out.

Conservatives are ignited by rhetoric from their cheerleaders...
"That means that we can — and should — propose and vote on straight repeal, repeatedly" and the only way Republicans in Congress can achieve their goals is "to put someone in the White House who won't veto" a repeal of Obama's health care reform, spending cuts and shrinking the government. - Mitch McConnell


Independents don't seem to be as aligned with conservatives on this issue as you may think. Looks like polling interest in health care repeal has fallen off as of late.

CBS/NYTimes 1-20-11
Seventy-three percent of Republicans favor repeal, Independents favor keeping it by a small margin, 45 percent to 38 percent.

CNN 1-18-11
For repeal - 47 percent among independent voters and 84 percent among Republicans

Gallup 1-7-11
eight of 10 Republicans support repeal - Independents are inclined to support repeal, but by a margin too small to be statistically significant

Foxnews 1-20-11
over half of independents (56 percent) and almost all Republicans (87 percent) would repeal it
 
The charge that's it's unconstitutional, a key talking point, is rendered moot.
The charge that The Obama and His friends are big-governmentr liberals looking to take away your right to choose, however, is not.
 
Chose what? Either to be responsible and pay for your own insurance or go to the Emergency room and make everyone else pay for it?
False dichotomy.
Among othe things, you also have the choice to pay for your health care yourself.
Well... you did, until the Party of Choice took your right to make that choice away from you.
 
False dichotomy.
Among othe things, you also have the choice to pay for your health care yourself.
Well... you did, until the Party of Choice took your right to make that choice away from you.

How is that false? That's exactly what is happening. No one goes without any care in the US. Therefore, if you don't pay for it (if you need it) the rest of us do. It's the reason Conservatives and Heritage were all for it in the 90's. Individual responsibility and all of that.
 
How is that false?
I said it was a false dichotomy. You offered only two choices when more than two exist.
Among othe things, you also have the choice to pay for your health care yourself.
Thus, there are more than the two choices you offered.

The Party of Choice has taken your right to make that choice away from you.
 
I said it was a false dichotomy. You offered only two choices when more than two exist.
Among othe things, you also have the choice to pay for your health care yourself.
Thus, there are more than the two choices you offered.

The Party of Choice has taken your right to make that choice away from you.
So you are under the view that some of the unisured currently could pay out of pocket for say chemotherapy if they have cancer?
 
So you are under the view that some of the unisured currently could pay out of pocket for say chemotherapy if they have cancer?
Certainly.

The point you're trying to not address is that The Party of Choice has taken the right to make that choice away from them.
Why do you not want to address that?
 
There's actually no way that the supreme court will be touching this any time soon. One of the prerequisites that a case must meet before being granted certiorari is actual harm. No one can claim to have been harmed by a provision that is not yet in effect.
 
There's actually no way that the supreme court will be touching this any time soon. One of the prerequisites that a case must meet before being granted certiorari is actual harm. No one can claim to have been harmed by a provision that is not yet in effect.
IIRC....
The states are taking the case to the Court. Their argument is that the law, by virtue of its very existence, violates their rights under the 10th.
Thus, harm.

Aside from that, so long as 4 justices agree that specific of the petition, whatever they are, warrant a review, cert can be granted..
 
Certainly.

The point you're trying to not address is that The Party of Choice has taken the right to make that choice away from them.
Why do you not want to address that?
Since when has Democrats been the party of "choice". Saying a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body or who someone wants to marry is different than saying someone has the right to forgo insurance premiums because if they go to the hospital then everyone else covers it.

I personally would prefer a Single Payer system which the rest of the world uses and has much lower medical costs. Instead, conservative prefer our currenct system where costs rise much higher than wage growth and is bankrupting the country. Your choice is sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that there's nothing wrong that we don't have to change anything.
 
There's actually no way that the supreme court will be touching this any time soon. One of the prerequisites that a case must meet before being granted certiorari is actual harm. No one can claim to have been harmed by a provision that is not yet in effect.

Then the prior courts ruling will stand and the mandate is unconstituional. Easy enough.
 
:confused: not politically - politically it just puts the energy back at the 2010 level. Either way, it's harder for him to get reelected.

which means ( and this i find interesting ) potentially, that's a secondary consideration.
Gina said:
I don't see how you get back to 2010 levels. If found constitutional, one of the GOP's key arguments against health care reform is rendered moot. Such was not the case in 2010.

If you think the passion against Obamacare was driven by its' constitutionality rather than it's massive expansion of government into our lives and our economy.....

That's not what a I said. It's a key argument, but not the only one and politically, that would be a win for Obama as it cannot be said then that healthcare reform is illegitimate.
 
How is that false? That's exactly what is happening. No one goes without any care in the US. Therefore, if you don't pay for it (if you need it) the rest of us do. It's the reason Conservatives and Heritage were all for it in the 90's. Individual responsibility and all of that.

I keep on hearing this and I know I was paying attention but damn if I can remember this happening. Do you have a link?
 
Since when has Democrats been the party of "choice". Saying a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body or who someone wants to marry is different than saying someone has the right to forgo insurance premiums because if they go to the hospital then everyone else covers it.

I have no idea what your position is but we have many here and I see where those protesting on Wall Street have said that if they go to college everyone should have to cover it.

I personally would prefer a Single Payer system which the rest of the world uses and has much lower medical costs. Instead, conservative prefer our currenct system where costs rise much higher than wage growth and is bankrupting the country. Your choice is sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending that there's nothing wrong that we don't have to change anything.

Nobody is still argueing that Obamacare is going to lower costs. Any curtailment of costs will have to include tort reform which the Republicans tried to get included in Obamacare but were rebuffed.
 
That's not what a I said. It's a key argument, but not the only one and politically, that would be a win for Obama as it cannot be said then that healthcare reform is illegitimate.

you could call it a debate-point win that is nonetheless a Pyrrhic victory. those who think it is constitutional or not are unlikely to be swayed by the SCOTUS decision - they are simply both more likely to believe it reinforces the importance of having their president appointing the judges.
 
you could call it a debate-point win that is nonetheless a Pyrrhic victory. those who think it is constitutional or not are unlikely to be swayed by the SCOTUS decision - they are simply both more likely to believe it reinforces the importance of having their president appointing the judges.

While you are correct it is sad that the court is thought of as another political branch of government.
 
Since when has Democrats been the party of "choice".
You're kidding, right?

Saying a woman has the right to choose what she does with her body or who someone wants to marry is different than saying someone has the right to forgo insurance premiums because if they go to the hospital then everyone else covers it.
You either support the right to make decisions regarding your personal life, or you don't.
:shrug:

I personally would prefer a Single Payer system which the rest of the world uses and has much lower medical costs.
Of course you do - more power for the government means less power for the people - all in the name of expanding the Dem voter base.
 
you could call it a debate-point win that is nonetheless a Pyrrhic victory. those who think it is constitutional or not are unlikely to be swayed by the SCOTUS decision - they are simply both more likely to believe it reinforces the importance of having their president appointing the judges.

I feel you are down playing the importance of an affirmation by the SCOTUS. Were it struck down, it would be a blow to the president and the GOP would declare victory and capitalize on that. You are ignoring the upside for the president if the ruling is favorable, as I have stated it before.
 
I keep on hearing this and I know I was paying attention but damn if I can remember this happening. Do you have a link?
It's tough finding origional sources because it was a long time ago and most people refrence it but here's the court case where a Heritage expert was quoted
Court cites Heritage Foundation’s 1989 support for healthcare mandate in decision : USACTION NEWS
GOP Leaders Backed a Healthcare Mandate

Also keep in mind....the privatization of Social Security that Bush was putting out had a mandate to buy into retirement as well.
 
It's tough finding origional sources because it was a long time ago and most people refrence it but here's the court case where a Heritage expert was quoted
Court cites Heritage Foundation’s 1989 support for healthcare mandate in decision : USACTION NEWS
GOP Leaders Backed a Healthcare Mandate

Also keep in mind....the privatization of Social Security that Bush was putting out had a mandate to buy into retirement as well.

The rightwingers are all for mandates, except when they're against them (like when a Dem is president)

The rightwing has no principles. All they have is a bunch of slogans that they repeat when convenient, and they throw their "principles" under the bus when they become inconvenient
 
Back
Top Bottom