• 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

Are you seriously suggesting that bills does nothing more than force people--who couldn't afford health insurance prior--to start paying for health insurance, or pay a fine?

If they couldn't afford it before, how in the hell are they going to afford it, now?

It's amazing how many people are DETERMINED that the law is evil ... without having a clue what's in it. Now maybe Nancy Pelosi's comment starts to make sense?

What the bill does, primarily, is extend health insurance to 30 million Americans who don't have it. It doesn't force anyone who can't afford it to buy insurance. But it does attempt to force people who CAN afford it to buy insurance. The bill provides subsidies, on a sliding income scale, for those who can't afford to buy it on their own.
 
Stop spreading right wing propoganda. The truth is that the latest CBO analysis found the net cost would be $50 billion LESS than originally estimated. The "double the cost" rhetoric is a flat-out lie, as the new gross cost estimate covers a different time period than the original gross cost estimate.

But I agree that Obamacare is just a good beginning -- focusing as it did more on expanded coverage than cost containment. Now we need to focus solely on the cost side of the equation.

Actually, you're wrong.

But now that the near-costless years 2010 and 2011 have elapsed, the true 10-year price tag comes into focus. From 2013 through 2022, the CBO reports, the costs of Obamacare come to $1.76 trillion — almost twice the phony original number.

High Court to hear Obamacare - chicagotribune.com
 
It's amazing how many people are DETERMINED that the law is evil ... without having a clue what's in it. Now maybe Nancy Pelosi's comment starts to make sense?

Well, gee whiz! Why don't you educate us...and be sure and cite the bill to support your claims. Thanks in advance.

What the bill does, primarily, is extend health insurance to 30 million Americans who don't have it. It doesn't force anyone who can't afford it to buy insurance. But it does attempt to force people who CAN afford it to buy insurance. The bill provides subsidies, on a sliding income scale, for those who can't afford to buy it on their own.

We had to create this monstrocity of a bill to do that?

I thought that's what medicaid was for.
 
Last edited:
No. The legislative intent has a great deal to do with it. If they didn't intend it as a tax, then it's not a tax. This is according to the rules of statutory construction which courts follow.

The more important consideration will be whether it has the effect of a tax, intent notwithstanding. Legislative intent is generally only considered when the statutory language is ambiguous and the courts can't figure out what Congress meant to say. That's not the case here. In this case the language is clear but the Court needs to determine the effect of the provision, i.e. whether a tax penalty should be treated like a tax.

I would argue that it should be treated like a tax because it could have been structured that way without changing its ultimate effect. In other words, instead of imposing a $900 (+ or -) penalty for not buying insurance, Congress could have imposed a $900 tax on EVERYONE -- with a $900 tax credit going to everyone who can show proof of insurance. And I think the "mandate" is consititutional for the very same reason. It's no more a mandate to buy insurance than the home interest deduction is a mandate to buy a home.
 
I think the individual mandate will be upheld.

The Federal government has the power to tax, that's a given. Does it have the power to tax if you don't do something? I think SCOTUS will find that it does. If not, Obamacare is gutted.

Yes the fed govt. has a right to tax. If the health care is a tax, then why doesn't the feds say with this tax, here is your health care policy (like medicare). Why give people a choice since we have to pay the tax.
 
Well, gee whiz! Why don't you educate us...and be sure and cite the bill to support your claims. Thanks in advance.



We had to create this monstrocity of a bill to do that?

I thought that's what medicaid was for.

Medicaid does not address people who are above the poverty line but who still can't afford insurance.

Of course the law does a lot of other good things, but coverage expansion is the main thing. There are probably 100 good summaries you could find in a 30 second Google search if you were interested. As a general policy it's probably a good idea to know what you're opposing before you oppose it. :roll:
 
Yes the fed govt. has a right to tax. If the health care is a tax, then why doesn't the feds say with this tax, here is your health care policy (like medicare). Why give people a choice since we have to pay the tax.

That certainly would have been the best way to go but there's no way it would have passed Congress.
 
Medicaid does not address people who are above the poverty line but who still can't afford insurance.



Why not just tweak medicaid? :rofl

Of course the law does a lot of other good things

Like what???

There are probably 100 good summaries you could find in a 30 second Google search if you were interested. As a general policy it's probably a good idea to know what you're opposing before you oppose it. :roll:

It's not my job to prove you right. That burden falls squarely at your doorstep, sir. Take your own advice and be able to support that which you support.
 
Why not just tweak medicaid? :rofl

Like what???

It's not my job to prove you right. That burden falls squarely at your doorstep, sir. Take your own advice and be able to support that which you support.

I think you've got me ****ed up with apdst university. If you want to talk about the law then do some research so you have an informed opinion.
 
the first ruling will be whether the penalty amounts to a tax.



Q&A: The details of the Supreme Court's healthcare debate - latimes.com

the argument is that the mandate cannot be thrown out before someone actually has to pay the penalty for not buying health insurance.

i'm curious to see the outcome of this.

I think the tax argument is bull****, because the penalty is not originally setup for the purpose of obtain revenue for the government. If 100% of the people complied, then there would be not tax revenue, which defeats the purposes of taxes. It's nothing more than a scam argument.
 
Huffpo has an article about an interesting poll of former Supreme Court clerks of sitting justices and other attorneys who have argued before the Court.

On average they said there was a 35% chance that the mandate would be held unconstitutional. 27% thought they wouldn't rule on it until 2015 per the Anti-Injunction Act. More results about what might happen if parts were found unconstitutional: Supreme Court Clerks Predict Health Care Reform Will Be Upheld
 
Just stumbled across this. It's a video report on today's activity from CNN, but based on this, it looks like the court will probably rule(oops, I was wrong again maybe), and that it could be very interesting how this plays out.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
 
That is not quite what the rules of statutory construction are:

Statutory Construction | LII / Legal Information Institute

What are you talking about?

Overview

Any question of statutory interpretation begins with looking at the plain language of the statute to discover its original intent. To discover a statute's original intent, courts first look to the words of the statute and apply their usual and ordinary meanings.

If after looking at the language of the statute the meaning of the statute remains unclear, courts attempt to ascertain the intent of the legislature by looking at legislative history and other sources. Courts generally steer clear of any interpretation that would create an absurd result which the Legislature did not intend.
 
I am happy with what I have now.

In that case the law should have no effect on you at all -- except that it will prevent your insurer from canceling you if you get sick and it will make sure that at least 85% of your premium goes to health care.
 
What are you talking about?

Like I said above, this isn't a case where the meaning of the statute is unclear. Even if it was, however, the legislative intent would surely indicate that the penalty was included, in part, to raise revenue.

I guess what the Court is probably thinking is that, for pragmatic reasons, it would be a bad idea to put this off for three years. By then too much will have been invested in setting up the system.
 
Like I said above, this isn't a case where the meaning of the statute is unclear.

Find me the part where "tax" or "revenue" is included in that part of the statute, or any reasonable equivalent. If it's not "unclear," this should be easy.


Even if it was, however, the legislative intent would surely indicate that the penalty was included, in part, to raise revenue.

If it's "sure," then point me to it.
 
Are you seriously suggesting that bills does nothing more than force people--who couldn't afford health insurance prior--to start paying for health insurance, or pay a fine?

If they couldn't afford it before, how in the hell are they going to afford it, now?

Give me a break, alot of young people who could afford insurance are gaming the system by gambling that they will not have health problems till they get older. They know they are covered anyway and this is costing us 25% extra on OUR insurance. People who truly can't afford insurance will not be fined.
 
Yes the fed govt. has a right to tax. If the health care is a tax, then why doesn't the feds say with this tax, here is your health care policy (like medicare). Why give people a choice since we have to pay the tax.

You are talking about single payer which is what medicare is, sadly that was deemed too radical and we have kept the private insurers and their huge CEO salaries. This tax is nothing but an incentive to get people who can afford insurance to buy it instead of sponging off the Govt. and costing the rest of us 25% extra on our premiums. The Govt. does not want anyone to pay it, just get insurance for pete's sake.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom