• 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 health care arguments under way

AdamT said:
Except that, as has been pointed out at least half a dozen times, that is a huge freakin' lie. In fact what the CBO said was that the cost will actually be $50 billion LOWER than originally estimated.
Click to expand...
No. I do not believe it is a lie. But show me from some reliable sources how the cost of health care has gone down for those of us who still have it.
 
Misterveritis said:
No. I do not believe it is a lie. But show me from some reliable sources how the cost of health care has gone down for those of us who still have it.
Click to expand...

I would say that the CBO report is probably the best source for what the CBO report said:

CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage Estimates.pdf
Click to expand...

As far as reducing health care costs for those presently insured -- no one has ever claimed that AHCA would do that. What it will do is lower deficits by reducing the growth in health care spending. It should also make insurance more affordable for lower income working people, the self employed, and anyone with a preexisting condition.
 
Misterveritis said:
LOL. It was an error. Are you denying that the bribes occurred?
Click to expand...

What are these bribes you're talking about? Who supposedly bribed who with what for what?
 
Harshaw said:
Siiiiigh.

No, it's still in there, just in expanded form. Congress DID pass it with it pertaining only to Nebraska; it was changed to all the states in reconciliation at Nelson's request, probably because he was embarrassed by it (and being booed out of a restaurant by your own constituents had to be rough). So, the venality, if it were such, was spread everywhere, not expunged.

Of course, it won't stop you from thinking Scalia only gets his information from Fox News, a conclusion you reached because you thought the provision was removed.
Click to expand...

You are wrong on this one. Its no longer a kick back if its universally applied and in the context of Scallia's quote it shows how little he knows about the law. Its sad really; however, its a good thing the SCOUS is, only judging the mandate so I guess it really doesn't matter.

Misterveritis said:
The entire law was not in question. Can you, along with him, understand that the crux of the Constitutional question is whether or not the government can force one private party to enter into a binding contract with another private party? If it can then government is unlimited in its reach, scope, and powers. We will live under a totalitarian regime with the power to rule us with an iron fist. If the government cannot then the whole law can be tossed on the ash heap of history.

If there were any justice every legislator who voted for this would be stripped of every possession and booted out of the country.
Click to expand...

The same arguments have been made before and in those instances the supreme court made their ruling so narrow that out could not be applied to law as a whole. Don't be surprised if the same thing happens here. Why else would the supreme court want to here arguments on the tax aspect of the law when all parties said it want a tax?

The difference between a democrat and a republican is who owes the favor, the politican or the business
 
Misterveritis said:
You did not respond to my post. Perhaps you didn't read it.
Click to expand...

Umm...yes I did. By quoting the post in which I had already answered it. Here, I'll do it again....be sure to read it and you will get your answer.

Kal'Stang said:
And just how in the world did you get that from my post?

There hasn't been a time in human history where humans did not create some form of government. Even the caveman did it. So no, there has never been a time when we were without "big daddy government". I recognize this fact. But that doesn't mean that I think that the government, any government, is the "supreme landlord of the people". But if you think that having no government involved in healthcare or education is a good thing then you're just fooling yourself.

If you look through history to a time when the prevailing government of <insert country here> purposely didn't attempt to educate the masses and purposely didn't help with healthcare and all that you will find is disease and ignorance. Yeah you may say that people can do it but the question is will they? And will they do it in such a way as to allow EVERYONE the chance at a good education and have good healthcare? The answer will be no. People that do not have the money to pay for a good education or good healthcare will go without. History supports that assertion. You say that charity will help those that can't do it on their own? Charity alone will not help everyone. If that were the case then no one in this country would go digging through dumpsters and trash cans just to try and find one bite to eat.

I may not trust the government, but I sure am not going to throw it out with the bath water either. The government does provide needed services and I believe that education and healthcare is a couple of those services.
Click to expand...

There...I even bolded it for you.
 
Misterveritis said:
Yeah. I started on the 900 page condensed version. I think to understand it I would have to mind map it over a period of many months. It is a monster. It is best to kill such a monster. It has a tyrant's fingerprints all over it. This sets the stage for totalitarianism in the US.
Click to expand...

More hyperbole?

:coffeepap
 
AdamT said:
Seriously, are you not able to read Scalia's quote and put together the words to form actual thoughts? If you could you would realize that he wasn't talking about a provision that affects all states. He was obviously under the impression that Nelson's vote was bought with a Nebraska-only provision. The fabric of reality is not sufficiently flexible to wrap around your contorted pretzel logic.
Click to expand...

Oh, like the "contorted pretzel logic" required to say that "I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress” means "only as pertains to commerce clause case law."

:lamo

It's also high-larious that you insist Obama must have meant these things the way you say because of his status a constitutional law expert.

Yet, according to you, Scalia, a 25-year Justice of the Supreme Court, must not be, and gets his information from Fox News talking points, based on one sentence and an interpretation YOU pull out of it because YOU did not know the kickback provision is still in the law.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I already answered that here in my post to Born Free....Basic answer though...History and current events.
Click to expand...

If you look through history to a time when the prevailing government of <insert country here> purposely didn't attempt to educate the masses and purposely didn't help with healthcare........

And exactly what country are you talking about that doesn't educate the masses and help with healthcare?
 
Harshaw said:
Oh, like the "contorted pretzel logic" required to say that "I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected congress” means "only as pertains to commerce clause case law."

:lamo

It's also high-larious that you insist Obama must have meant these things the way you say because of his status a constitutional law expert.

Yet, according to you, Scalia, a 25-year Justice of the Supreme Court, must not be, and gets his information from Fox News talking points, based on one sentence and an interpretation YOU pull out of it because YOU did not know the kickback provision is still in the law.
Click to expand...

Silly man, don't you know that repeating the same false assertions over and over doesn't make them more true? :lol:
 
AdamT said:
Silly man, don't you know that repeating the same false assertions over and over doesn't make them more true? :lol:
Click to expand...

I guess you're out of arguments.
 
Harshaw said:
I guess you're out of arguments.
Click to expand...

Yep, once you've put one in the heart and one behind the ear, it really doesn't matter that you only had two bullets.
 
AdamT said:
Yep, once you've put one in the heart and one behind the ear, it really doesn't matter that you only had two bullets.
Click to expand...

My only question is whether or not you sincerely believe you did that. I have reasons to go either way on it.
 
Harshaw said:
My only question is whether or not you sincerely believe you did that. I have reasons to go either way on it.
Click to expand...

Of course I do -- it's plain as day. Scalia cited a "cornhusker kickback" which isn't in the final bill -- but which gets frequent airplay from ignorant conservative radio and TV personalities.
 
AdamT said:
Of course I do -- it's plain as day. Scalia cited a "cornhusker kickback" which isn't in the final bill -- but which gets frequent airplay from ignorant conservative radio and TV personalities.
Click to expand...

And you just ignored the part where you were a) wrong about that b) (surprise!) hypocritical when it comes to your standards on "expertise." :shrug:
 
Misterveritis said:
The entire law was not in question. Can you, along with him, understand that the crux of the Constitutional question is whether or not the government can force one private party to enter into a binding contract with another private party?
Click to expand...
That's not the question. The question is whether those people are already part of the health care system or not. If you can walk into virtually any ER in the country and demand treatment then it seems you already are part of the system. Requiring you to buy insurance to keep that need isn't forcing participation, it's forcing payment for it.


But as I've said before, if some people want to opt out of the system for their entire life then I don't have a problem with that. I personally don't want to go back to leaving people parked just inside the ER door while they die from lack of funds but if that's what it takes for some people to be happy then I can accept that. It's their choice, they just have to make up their mind now, not later. I've been paying into the system for 30 years. I don't want to pay extra because you decided you didn't want to pay until you were old and/or dying.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
And you just ignored the part where you were a) wrong about that b) (surprise!) hypocritical when it comes to your standards on "expertise." :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yeah, except that I was absolutely right that the cornhusker kickback was not in the bill, and Scalia's comment made it crystal clear that he was talking about a Nebraska-only provision. The inability to admit obvious error is a real character flaw.
 
AdamT said:
Yeah, except that I was absolutely right that the cornhusker kickback was not in the bill
Click to expand...

No, it was in the bill, and passed in the bill. It was expanded to all of the states in reconciliation.

I explained this once; it's inexcusable that you continue to be ignorant on it.


and Scalia's comment made it crystal clear that he was talking about a Nebraska-only provision.
Click to expand...

:shrug: He was referring to the popular term for it.


The inability to admit obvious error is a real character flaw.
Click to expand...

What error? My argument comes down to this: you said that Scalia's referring to the cornhusker kickback means he gets his information from Fox News, not from the law, because it's not in the law.

But it is -- it was never removed, only expanded -- and you didn't know it still was, thus your pronouncements as to where Scalia gets his information are laughable.

I never even bothered to point out the prima facie juvenility of such a statement about where Scalia gets his infromation in the first place, but I'll do so now.
 
jambalaya said:
If you look through history to a time when the prevailing government of <insert country here> purposely didn't attempt to educate the masses and purposely didn't help with healthcare........

And exactly what country are you talking about that doesn't educate the masses and help with healthcare?
Click to expand...

The reason that I put "<insert country here>" is because you could point to any of them and my statement would be true.
 
Harshaw said:
No, in fact, that IS the question.
Click to expand...
That's the way the opposition has framed it but it's not the underlying question. When we decided to force any ER that received or wanted to receive government money to accept any patient in need of medical care, everybody was made part of the system. ~$60/mo is damn cheap for emergency medical insurance.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
That's the way the opposition has framed it but it's not the underlying question.
Click to expand...

It is overwhelmingly likely that it is, indeed, the question upon which the Court will rule. It may not be the question you'd rather they rule on, but nonetheless . . .
 
Harshaw said:
It is overwhelmingly likely that it is, indeed, the question upon which the Court will rule. It may not be the question you'd rather they rule on, but nonetheless . . .
Click to expand...

I think MoSurveyor is correct, part of the answer will have to answer whether people are already part of the system or not. His point is well taken.
 
Boo Radley said:
I think MoSurveyor is correct, part of the answer will have to answer whether people are already part of the system or not. His point is well taken.
Click to expand...

Of course you do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom