• 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:
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?
Click to expand...

Boo Radley said:
There's no excuse for anyone involved not reading.
Click to expand...

It's impossible to read it critically. Too many references/citations to myriad other laws and codes. No one has all that memorized and getting through it would take years.

It's like selling you a needle and delivering it inside a haystack. Wanna buy it or don't you?
 
Last edited:
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...

It wasn't removed. It was extended to all states, not just Nebraska.
 
Arbo said:
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?
Click to expand...

It's not about politicans; nice try . . . It's about the Supreme Court, allegedly a much more responsible group of people . . . And of course, right-wing Scalia shows us how dedicated he is to our constitution and what will or won't pass muster . . .
 
AdamT said:
No, it was removed.
Click to expand...

Only in the sense that it was specific to Nebraska. The exact same thing survived, only going to all the states.

Nelson to oppose reconciliation package, cites student lending - TheHill.com

Nelson, who supported the Senate healthcare bill in December, was criticized for a $100 million in Medicaid funding for Nebraska that was included in the bill to win his support. The "Cornhusker Kickback" would be removed with the passage of the reconciliation package.

Conservative critics attacked the Medicaid provision and it became a political football in the healthcare debate. House Democrats balked at passing the Senate healthcare bill because it included the provision.

Nelson later asked Democratic leaders to remove the controversial language, explaining that he asked for it to serve as a legislative placeholder to help other states win extra Medicaid funding.

The reconciliation bill provides additional federal funding of Medicaid for all states compared to the Senate bill.

“I am pleased to see the Nebraska Medicaid provision is extended to all states,” Nelson said after learning of the decision in February. “I have said all along that the federal government needs to either fully fund the new Medicaid costs for states, or to un-mandate the requirement on state budgets.”
Click to expand...
 
Harshaw said:
Only in the sense that it was specific to Nebraska.
Click to expand...

The fact that it was restricted to Nebraska is precisely what made it "the cornhusker kickback". :roll:
 
AdamT said:
The fact that it was restricted to Nebraska is precisely what made it "the cornhusker kickback". :roll:
Click to expand...

That was simply the press appellation. Now it's everyone's kickback, and it's in the law.
 
Neomalthusian said:
It's impossible to read it critically. Too many references/citations to myriad other laws and codes. No one has all that memorized and getting through it would take years.

It's like selling you a needle and delivering it inside a haystack. Wanna buy it or don't you?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. Someone wrote it, and understood what they were writing. Lawyers write and interpret this type of thing all the time.
 
jet57 said:
It's not about politicans; nice try . . . It's about the Supreme Court, allegedly a much more responsible group of people . . . And of course, right-wing Scalia shows us how dedicated he is to our constitution and what will or won't pass muster . . .
Click to expand...

So you think because a justice will not read the whole bill, he is not 'dedicated' to the Constitution.

But legislators who do not read the whole bill, but pass it, and a president that does not read the whole bill but signs it into law ARE 'dedicated' to the constitution?

Pretty amazing spin.
 
Harshaw said:
That was simply the press appellation. Now it's everyone's kickback, and it's in the law.
Click to expand...

The context here is that Scalia talked about about the "cornhusker kickback" in oral arguments, when there is no cornhusker kickback in the bill. If it doesn't just benefit Nebraska then, by definition, it isn't "the cornhusker kickback."

FYI, it isn't necessarily a bad thing if the federal government does something that all the states like.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
The context here is that Scalia talked about about the "cornhusker kickback" in oral arguments, when there is no cornhusker kickback in the bill.
Click to expand...

No, the context is he referred to what was commonly called the "cornhusker kickback," which did survive in expanded form into the law, and because he used those two words, you claim he gets his information from Fox News instead of from the law itself. I suspect YOU did not know it survived in that expanded form.

FYI, it isn't necessarily a bad thing if the federal government does something that all the states like.
Click to expand...

FYI, I never said it was or wasn't and this is the latest in a long, long line of silly strawmen and red herrings from you.
 
Arbo said:
So you think because a justice will not read the whole bill, he is not 'dedicated' to the Constitution.

But legislators who do not read the whole bill, but pass it, and a president that does not read the whole bill but signs it into law ARE 'dedicated' to the constitution?

Pretty amazing spin.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry; spin? Politicains and the carrying impplimentation of the law and deciding what is and is not constitutional are and should remain two separate things.

And no, if Scalia won't take the time to comprehend what he's ruling on then he's not as dedicated to the constitution as he would have everyone belive; is he . . . of course not.
 
Harshaw said:
No, the context is he referred to what was commonly called the "cornhusker kickback," which did survive in expanded form into the law, and because he used those two words, you claim he gets his information from Fox News instead of from the law itself. I suspect YOU did not know it survived in that expanded form.

FYI, I never said it was or wasn't and this is the latest in a long, long line of silly strawmen and red herrings from you.
Click to expand...

The context of the quote is that Scalia was suggesting that the provision might be struck down on the basis of venality, so he was obviously implying that it was put in to bribe Nelson for his vote.

"If we struck down nothing in this legislation but the -- what's it called, the Cornhusker kickback, okay, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, okay?" asked Scalia, talking to Paul Clement. "When we strike that down, it's clear that Congress would not have passed it without that. It was the means of getting the last necessary vote in the Senate. And you are telling us that the whole statute would fall because the Cornhusker kickback is bad. That can't be right."

So what it means, again, is that he was talking about something that wasn't even in the bill, but that still gets a lot of airplay on conservative media outlets.
 
AdamT said:
The context of the quote is that Scalia was suggesting that the provision might be struck down on the basis of venality, so he was obviously implying that it was put in to bribe Nelson for his vote.

"If we struck down nothing in this legislation but the -- what's it called, the Cornhusker kickback, okay, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, okay?" asked Scalia, talking to Paul Clement. "When we strike that down, it's clear that Congress would not have passed it without that. It was the means of getting the last necessary vote in the Senate. And you are telling us that the whole statute would fall because the Cornhusker kickback is bad. That can't be right."

So what it means, again, is that he was talking about something that wasn't even in the bill, but that still gets a lot of airplay on conservative media outlets.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jet57 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Another member posted the opinion that the court should not do this, and you accused him of spewing political propaganda. So given your response I had to assume you were of the opposite opinion.

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 . . .
Click to expand...

If the FedGov cannot constitutionally compel commerce to be entered into between private individuals/organizations, and cannot constitutionally levy a direct tax on individuals on the condition of engaging in a certain type of commerce, then the thousands of pages of other bull**** in the bill are irrelevant. You're basically saying "read harder and closer" in order to try to weave together some reaching rationalization for something ridiculously unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
I'm sorry; spin? Politicains and the carrying impplimentation of the law and deciding what is and is not constitutional are and should remain two separate things.

And no, if Scalia won't take the time to comprehend what he's ruling on then he's not as dedicated to the constitution as he would have everyone belive; is he . . . of course not.
Click to expand...
If Scalia isn't, based on that simple, flawed, reasoning, then so are...ohh...all 4 of the liberal justices! :)

I think all 4 of the liberal justices are not dedicated to the constitution, because they never read the health care bill.
 
winston53660 said:
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.
Click to expand...
For people like you? So the free market does not offer goods and services for people like you? And yet the free market has provided more goods and services to more people with a wide variety of prices every time it has been tried.

Even if you should die a slow, miserable death, and who does not, why do you believe your neighbor should pay for your health care?
 
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...

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.
 
jet57 said:
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.
Click to expand...
One can, and I did, escape from California intact some half dozen or so years ago. It is far harder to escape from the US. California does not have the same Constitution as the US.

I should also add here that the Act may well serve everybody by bringing down the cost of care . . .
Click to expand...
Except that the price tag has roughly doubled in the two years we have had the law shoved, by the Democrats and the One term Flexible Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama. And, in my opinion it cannot possibly do anything other than go up until death panels ration care. Then Winston dies a slow, miserable death, because the government won't see any reason for keeping him alive and plenty of economic reasons for easing him into death. We don't really want that, do we?
 
Misterveritis said:
Except that the price tag has roughly doubled in the two years we have had the law shoved, by the Democrats and the One term Flexible Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
Are you denying that the bribes did not occur?

I love your tagline quote. Have you read the other 899 pages of The Wealth of Nations? Itis a hard read today because so much has changed. But the fundamental argument he made is that the capitalist system is the reason that some nations are wealthy. By implication those nations who choose other paths leave much wealth uncreated. The US today is a great example of what happens when free markets are damaged over a long period of time by statists. We are all poorer today because of the one term flexible Marxist president's policies.
 
Boo Radley said:
There's no excuse for anyone involved not reading.
Click to expand...
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.
 
jet57 said:
I'm sorry; spin? Politicains and the carrying impplimentation of the law and deciding what is and is not constitutional are and should remain two separate things.

And no, if Scalia won't take the time to comprehend what he's ruling on then he's not as dedicated to the constitution as he would have everyone belive; is he . . . of course not.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom