• 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!

Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The U.S. Supreme Court
will hear a challenge to President Obama's signature law on health care, it said Monday in an announcement that has nearly as much impact on partisan politics as the final decision has on the law itself.The challenge in the case, brought by 26 states out of Florida, is based on the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the Patient Accountability and Affordable Care Act, which requires that all Americans purchase health insurance. [h=2][/h]

The nine-member court will also look at severability, meaning if the mandate falls, could the rest of the law survive since it is primarily built on the revenues collected by forcing people to buy health care. The court is also folding in an additional case on the tax implications of the law.The case is one that all sides want heard. But hearing the case this session -- arguments could come in March -- means that a ruling will come in June -- in the heat of the 2012 election cycle.

Read more: Supreme Court To Hear Challenge To Obama Health Care Law | Fox News

So how will Obama spin this come the decision when the SCOTUS strikes down his law?
 
Through his typical race/class/union card. That's all he knows.

Even if it's upheld, it'll be repealed by our next president. In fact, it'll play into Republicans hands if it is upheld because that what the GOP nominee can run repealing it.

However, I hope to see it blow up in his face, and I think it will in the Supreme Court.
 
either way it goes, i hope that it begins the process of opening medicare up to everyone. that should have been the solution instead of this employment-based private health care boondoggle.
 
either way it goes, i hope that it begins the process of opening medicare up to everyone. that should have been the solution instead of this employment-based private health care boondoggle.

Yes, open up a program that is failing, massively over budget to all American's, that's sure to be a good idea!

Seriously, folks, he means it! You can't make this **** UP.
 
Yes, open up a program that is failing, massively over budget to all American's, that's sure to be a good idea!

Seriously, folks, he means it! You can't make this **** UP.

Sounds far more reasonable than my quote of you in my signature. Your proposal is actually hilarious.
 
So how will Obama spin this come the decision when the SCOTUS strikes down his law?

This is the same case that a conservative DC court upheld. Hopefully, that decision will be reversed, but I am not counting on that happening.

Nobody should be FORCED to purchase insurance. That is blatantly unconstitutional.
 
So how will Obama spin this come the decision when the SCOTUS strikes down his law?

<shrug>

Heck, he has shown he will ignore any law or any court decision he doesn't like...why should this be any different?
 
Yes, open up a program that is failing, massively over budget to all American's, that's sure to be a good idea!

it is a pretty good idea, actually.

first, providing the majority of health care through for-profit companies is failing because health care is an essential service with inelastic demand. that means the price is only going up, and quickly at that.

second, if a larger amount of patients are enrolled in medicare, it will have more power to be a downward force on bloated prices.

steps toward single payer will have to be accompanied by increased revenue to the program and serious cost control, however. we can start by significantly increasing the supply of doctors. also, there is no reason that it should cost a billion dollars to bring a prescription drug to market. the regulatory and legal structure needs serious examination.
 
<shrug>

Heck, he has shown he will ignore any law or any court decision he doesn't like...why should this be any different?

Here is the irony of Obamacare. It was crafted from what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts, and Mitt Romney has the lead among Republicans as the man to replace Obama. This is what can be called one of those WTF moments of American History. LOL.
 
Here is the irony of Obamacare. It was crafted from what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts, and Mitt Romney has the lead among Republicans as the man to replace Obama. This is what can be called one of those WTF moments of American History. LOL.

He was for it before he was against it.
 
Here is the irony of Obamacare. It was crafted from what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts, and Mitt Romney has the lead among Republicans as the man to replace Obama. This is what can be called one of those WTF moments of American History. LOL.

No, it shows how pathetic the voter base is, and exactly WHY Romney, despite the dreams of Progressives like yourself, will never BE the nominee.
 
it is a pretty good idea, actually.

This should be good.
first, providing the majority of health care through for-profit companies is failing because health care is an essential service with inelastic demand. that means the price is only going up, and quickly at that.
For Profit medical care, creates this little thing called competition. There are many many many reasons for health care costs where they are at, profit, is not one of them.
second, if a larger amount of patients are enrolled in medicare, it will have more power to be a downward force on bloated prices.
Actually, you have it bassackwards. Anytime Government "promises" payment, costs go up. Why do you think Government projects are always over budget? Hmmm?
steps toward single payer will have to be accompanied by increased revenue to the program and serious cost control, however.
Single payer is the worst ****ing idea since the Edsel.
we can start by significantly increasing the supply of doctors.
Of course, since the pay won't be there, you'll get lesser talent as brighter minds will go where the compensation is.
also, there is no reason that it should cost a billion dollars to bring a prescription drug to market. the regulatory and legal structure needs serious examination.
The only thing we can agree on.
 
Because it's unconstitutional. Duh.

Now that's what you would call circular reasoning. :D

The interesting question is what happens if they strike down the mandate but leave the rest of the bill standing.
 
Last edited:
Finally. After every decision, regardless by what court, I've been saying its all been meaningless pretty much until it got here becaues it was inevitable it would. This was too big of a thing to be settled anywhere but SCOTUS. It'll be interesting to see what the decision is.
 
Now that's what you would call circular reasoning. :D

The interesting question is what happens if they strike down the mandate but leave the rest of the bill standing.

Except for the fact the Nation will be bankrupt since the entire BOCare scheme is an economic disaster with or without the mandate, nothing much will happen.
 
Didn't you hear? In fears that SCOTUS will be a do-nothing court, President Obama will be issuing an executive order to ignore the constitution. It's been deemed the only way to help job creation. :p
 
"All Reasonable Independent Economists Agree: If I"m not allowed to have the EPA circumvent the SCOTUS and mandate the Affordable Healthcare Act, then rape will spike, the oceans will rise, and seniors won't get their social security checks."
 
Beckel on the five this afternoon just laid out the talking point for the left concerning this decision. "If the court rules in favor of Obamacare, then they are deliberating properly and acting as they should, if they strike it down, then they are just hacks ruling politically rather than judicially like they should..."

Seriously folks. You just can't make this stuff up....



j-mac
 
For Profit medical care, creates this little thing called competition.

since most people are stuck with whatever their employer offers, not so much.

and since it's not feasible to drive one's child from hospital to hospital looking for the best price, not so much.

basically, the price is whatever they can drag out of an insurance company and your wallet. what's the patient going to do, walk out and die at home because it's too expensive?

There are many many many reasons for health care costs where they are at, profit, is not one of them.

part of it is that we have private, for-profit care providers and private, for-profit medicine producers mediated by private, for-profit middlemen negotiating the price. it's really not surprising that the prices have risen exponentially.

Actually, you have it bassackwards. Anytime Government "promises" payment, costs go up.

in a single payer scenario, the single payer has a lot more ability to impact prices because it has the largest percentage of the market. also, health care providers have more of an incentive not to invite price controls if most of their income is coming from one non-profit insurance provider rather than a number of private for-profit insurance companies.

Single payer is the worst ****ing idea since the Edsel.

if we had single payer and someone argued that we should ditch it in favor of health care tied to employment, that person would be laughed out of the room. and every large employer would fight the proposition tooth and nail.

Of course, since the pay won't be there, you'll get lesser talent as brighter minds will go where the compensation is.

i don't agree that people wouldn't become doctors if they couldn't command salaries in the multiple six digits. also increasing the amount of doctors in the pool can significantly reduce the workload of existing doctors. it's definitely something we should do.
 
since most people are stuck with whatever their employer offers, not so much.

and since it's not feasible to drive one's child from hospital to hospital looking for the best price, not so much.

basically, the price is whatever they can drag out of an insurance company and your wallet. what's the patient going to do, walk out and die at home because it's too expensive?



part of it is that we have private, for-profit care providers and private, for-profit medicine producers mediated by private, for-profit middlemen negotiating the price. it's really not surprising that the prices have risen exponentially.



in a single payer scenario, the single payer has a lot more ability to impact prices because it has the largest percentage of the market. also, health care providers have more of an incentive not to invite price controls if most of their income is coming from one non-profit insurance provider rather than a number of private for-profit insurance companies.



if we had single payer and someone argued that we should ditch it in favor of health care tied to employment, that person would be laughed out of the room. and every large employer would fight the proposition tooth and nail.



i don't agree that people wouldn't become doctors if they couldn't command salaries in the multiple six digits. also increasing the amount of doctors in the pool can significantly reduce the workload of existing doctors. it's definitely something we should do.


Your reasoning seems awfully naive.....


j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom