• 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

Arbo said:
Perhaps you should look up land use as such. You will clearly find that even most of the USA is 'empty' land.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about people, not land use and rabbit populations.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about people, not land use and rabbit populations.
Click to expand...

I originally said: "That being said, you do realize that most of this country is not 'big city' right? "

I think 'this country' means land. Or are you being obtuse on purpose?
 
Arbo said:
I originally said: "That being said, you do realize that most of this country is not 'big city' right? "

I think 'this country' means land. Or are you being obtuse on purpose?
Click to expand...
I think when the subject is people that "this country" is about where those people live, not the North Slope or the middle of the Mojave.

Further, the post you originally responded to was:
"... I've lived in five major metropolitan areas in my life and I've never heard of one. Maybe it's a rural thing?"
That also seems to imply people and where they live - not land use in general.

Are you just being obstinate?
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
I think when the subject is people that "this country" is about where those people live, not the North Slope or the middle of the Mojave.

Further, the post you originally responded to was:
"... I've lived in five major metropolitan areas in my life and I've never heard of one. Maybe it's a rural thing?"
That also seems to imply people and where they live - not land use in general.

Are you just being obstinate?
Click to expand...

I see discussion with you is not possible. For even if my response was to 'maybe it's a rural thing', it would suggest that there is a LOT of rural, far more than there is city.
 
Arbo said:
I see discussion with you is not possible. For even if my response was to 'maybe it's a rural thing', it would suggest that there is a LOT of rural, far more than there is city.
Click to expand...
I say it's a matter of how you look at the situation. When I think "world" in terms of humans and their settlements I pretty much ignore the oceans even though they cover 3/4 of the Earth. No cities, towns, or villages out there - just yachts, some cruise ships, and a few aircraft carriers that really count.


Our quibble over words is moot anyway. County/city hospitals exist in large metropolitan areas as well as rural areas, which was the whole issue in the post you originally quoted.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
I say it's a matter of how you look at the situation. When I think "world" in terms of humans and their settlements I pretty much ignore the oceans even though they cover 3/4 of the Earth. No cities, towns, or villages out there - just yachts, some cruise ships, and a few aircraft carriers that really count.


Our quibble over words is moot anyway. County/city hospitals exist in large metropolitan areas as well as rural areas, which was the whole issue in the post you originally quoted.
Click to expand...

Actually, the number one rated trauma center in the United States is Ben Taub Hospital, here in Houston. It's owned and run by Harris County. And it is so good that, when a cop is shot or otherwise injured, that hospital is where he is taken, not any of the private hospitals, even if one is closer.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
Actually, the number one rated trauma center in the United States is Ben Taub Hospital, here in Houston. It's owned and run by Harris County. And it is so good that, when a cop is shot or otherwise injured, that hospital is where he is taken, not any of the private hospitals, even if one is closer.
Click to expand...
Many county hospitals do become experts depending on their history. Ours is asthma/respiratory (closest hospital to the old industrial sector) and obstetrics, esp. pre-mature babies.


KU Med Center also has a very good trauma center.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Many county hospitals do become experts depending on their history. Ours is asthma/respiratory (closest hospital to the old industrial sector) and obstetrics, esp. pre-mature babies.


KU Med Center also has a very good trauma center.
Click to expand...



UT Southwestern is in the top 5% of heart transplant centers with a 100% survival rate the the first year out.
 
Harshaw said:
Do you have some kind of support for your assertions that all the other Justices are having their clerks read the law, and Scalia isn't? 'Coz the little blurb you linked to says nothing of the kind.
Click to expand...

Here's the source story: Justices to lawyers: Don't make us read the law - Politico Staff - POLITICO.com

It shows that other justices are quite willing to put in the time to read the 2700 page bill, but Scalia is quoted as saying he wants "what's easy for him".

So, it appears that what's in a bill being proposed to the country doesn't matter to Scalia; the only thing that matters is what Scalia wants to talk about . . .

Very bad.
 
jet57 said:
Here's the source story: Justices to lawyers: Don't make us read the law - Politico Staff - POLITICO.com

It shows that other justices are quite willing to put in the time to read the 2700 page bill, but Scalia is quoted as saying he wants "what's easy for him".

So, it appears that what's in a bill being proposed to the country doesn't matter to Scalia; the only thing that matters is what Scalia wants to talk about . . .

Very bad.
Click to expand...

Bullsh.

It is not the job of the Court to try and piece together and salvage a bill that is invalid because it violates the commerce clause and is unconstitutional to begin with.

The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be re-writing bills.
 
jet57 said:
Here's the source story: Justices to lawyers: Don't make us read the law - Politico Staff - POLITICO.com

It shows that other justices are quite willing to put in the time to read the 2700 page bill, but Scalia is quoted as saying he wants "what's easy for him".

So, it appears that what's in a bill being proposed to the country doesn't matter to Scalia; the only thing that matters is what Scalia wants to talk about . . .

Very bad.
Click to expand...

To be honest from reading the oral arguements it appears like none of the Justices read the whole law. They even jokingly refer to the 8th amendment when they thought that one of the lawyers suggested that they do read the whole thing. (sorry, names are not my strong suit and I don't feel like looking it up again, but it was in the transcript of the 3rd day arguements)

Just to refresh memories and save you all a bit of time the 8th Amendment has the Cruel and Unusual punishment clause.
 
Erod said:
Bullsh.

It is not the job of the Court to try and piece together and salvage a bill that is invalid because it violates the commerce clause and is unconstitutional to begin with.

The Supreme Court isn't supposed to be re-writing bills.
Click to expand...

Boy, am I glad that you don't decide on the constitutionality of anything.

It is a fiduciary reposibility of any supreme court justice to read and comprehend any matter that applies to anything[/i] that has an effect on The US Constitution. I think your argument is profoundly weak and based on nothing but political propoganda rather than anything factual or reasonable.
 
jet57 said:
Boy, am I glad that you don't decide on the constitutionality of anything.

It is a fiduciary reposibility of any supreme court justice to read and comprehend any matter that applies to anything[/i] that has an effect on The US Constitution. I think your argument is profoundly weak and based on nothing but political propoganda rather than anything factual or reasonable.
Click to expand...


So you contend that SCOTUS should dissect and reassemble bills with unconstitutional provisions so that they're Constitutional?

I don't think so. I think they uphold or overturn lower courts' decisions.
 
xpiher said:
That requires the federal gov to tell state govs to **** themselves and ignore the 10th
Click to expand...
I should have made it clear that "the government" in this context meant the federal government. We can discuss the states' roles if you wish.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Which would just put people in worse situation than they are now. On both counts. No thanks.
Click to expand...
Why do you believe that operating "health care" under free market principals would provide a different result than every other kind of good or service? Where do you find your wisdom on this issue?
 
jet57 said:
Boy, am I glad that you don't decide on the constitutionality of anything.

It is a fiduciary reposibility of any supreme court justice to read and comprehend any matter that applies to anything[/i] that has an effect on The US Constitution. I think your argument is profoundly weak and based on nothing but political propoganda rather than anything factual or reasonable.
Click to expand...


Well. They are deciding the Constitutionality of the part of the law the case was brought to them on. In this case, if it unconstitutional to force one private party to make a contract with another private party then the whole law must go. Congress, fortunately, did not include that little magic clause that says anything not thrown out by the courts is still law.

Good for us. I do not want the US to end with a whimper.
 
Neomalthusian said:
So you contend that SCOTUS should dissect and reassemble bills with unconstitutional provisions so that they're Constitutional?

I don't think so. I think they uphold or overturn lower courts' decisions.
Click to expand...

What kind of a misreading of the English language is that? Where did I say that the supremecourt as to disect a bill and put it back together making it constitutional?

They should disect everything tha comes before them; because of the significance of their decisions so that, in context, the "sticking points" are well understood. This practice has been referred to as making "intelligent decisions".

I must say that I don't get your argument: the Supreme Court of the United States should do things on the cheap, and just skate decisions on The Constitution . . .

right
 
Misterveritis said:
Why do you believe that operating "health care" under free market principals would provide a different result than every other kind of good or service? Where do you find your wisdom on this issue?
Click to expand...

I already answered that here in my post to Born Free....Basic answer though...History and current events.

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...
 
Misterveritis said:
Why do you believe that operating "health care" under free market principals would provide a different result than every other kind of good or service? Where do you find your wisdom on this issue?
Click to expand...

For people like me and people in emergency situations health care is not a free market. W/O it I would die a slow miserable death as my heart slow gave out.
 
Misterveritis said:
Well. They are deciding the Constitutionality of the part of the law the case was brought to them on. In this case, if it unconstitutional to force one private party to make a contract with another private party then the whole law must go. Congress, fortunately, did not include that little magic clause that says anything not thrown out by the courts is still law.

Good for us. I do not want the US to end with a whimper.
Click to expand...

I see your point, however I have countered that with the Californai statute that requires drivers to buy liability insurance if tehy wish to legally operate a vehicle in the state. Like you, I'm not wild about that part of the Healthcare Act, but it will be interesting to see what the proponents use to hold up their argument.

I should also add here that the Act may well serve everybody by bringing down the cost of care . . .
 
Kal'Stang said:
To be honest from reading the oral arguements it appears like none of the Justices read the whole law. They even jokingly refer to the 8th amendment when they thought that one of the lawyers suggested that they do read the whole thing. (sorry, names are not my strong suit and I don't feel like looking it up again, but it was in the transcript of the 3rd day arguements)

Just to refresh memories and save you all a bit of time the 8th Amendment has the Cruel and Unusual punishment clause.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not surprised. Scalia however opened himself up like a fish when he scoffed at "the very idea" that he should have some idea of what he's talking about . . .
 
jet57 said:
Oh, I'm not surprised. Scalia however opened himself up like a fish when he scoffed at "the very idea" that he should have some idea of what he's talking about . . .
Click to expand...

It's also painfully obvious that Scalia is taking cues from right-wing media and not the law itself. In the argument he made a snide remark about the "cornhusker kickback", which was a proposal to provide extra Medicaid funding for Nebraska. It was suggested as a way to get Ben Nelson's vote. The only problem is, it didn't make it into the final bill. He would know that if he or his clerks had read the bill, but not if they were getting your "research" from Fox News.
 
jet57 said:
Oh, I'm not surprised. Scalia however opened himself up like a fish when he scoffed at "the very idea" that he should have some idea of what he's talking about . . .
Click to expand...

When the legislature passed this bill, most had not read it. So how do you figure they have any more of an idea of what they are talking about?
 
AdamT said:
It's also painfully obvious that Scalia is taking cues from right-wing media and not the law itself. In the argument he made a snide remark about the "cornhusker kickback", which was a proposal to provide extra Medicaid funding for Nebraska. It was suggested as a way to get Ben Nelson's vote. The only problem is, it didn't make it into the final bill. He would know that if he or his clerks had read the bill, but not if they were getting your "research" from Fox News.
Click to expand...

well that's fitting then. legislators didnt' read it when they passed it, and the justices won't read it when they strike it down.
 
cpwill said:
well that's fitting then. legislators didnt' read it when they passed it, and the justices won't read it when they strike it down.
Click to expand...

There's no excuse for anyone involved not reading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom