• 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!

Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Court?

Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

only the mandate will get shot down if anything is. And that can easily be a positive thing for Obama since he never wanted it.

How does the law survive without the main way to pay for it?....If they only shoot down the mandate, which I would think the whole law has to go due to no severability clause, then repeal will be a necessity due to the staggering cost, not paid for in it.

WASHINGTON (The Blaze/AP) — Contrary to what some may believe, President Barack Obama’s health care law would not automatically collapse if the Supreme Court strikes down the unpopular requirement that most Americans carry medical insurance or face a penalty.

The overhaul could still lurch ahead without that core requirement, experts say. But it would be more like a clunky collection of parts than a coherent whole.

That would make an already complicated law a lot harder to carry out, risking repercussions for a U.S. health care system widely seen as wasteful, unaffordable and unable to deliver consistently high quality.



Premiums could jump for people buying coverage individually, and for small businesses. That’s because other provisions of the law require insurance companies to accept people with health problems, and limit the premiums that can be charged to older adults.

Sooner or later, the dilemma of the nation’s 50 million uninsured would land back on the doorstep of Congress.

Killing Health Care Plan‘s Individual Mandate Won’t Dismantle the Law | Video | TheBlaze.com


j-mac
 
How does the law survive without the main way to pay for it?....If they only shoot down the mandate, which I would think the whole law has to go due to no severability clause, then repeal will be a necessity due to the staggering cost, not paid for in it.




j-mac

That's the argument the Obama admin is making, at least for the "must cover sick people clause"-but that's not the courts job.

This post was made from my phone.please excuse spelling mistakes
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Hard to believe his claims that he went to a prestigious university and was allegedly taught something about constitutional law. Perhaps he should surrender his diploma for inspection, along with his birth certificate, his hospital records and his passport.

I seem to remember the claim that he was a constitutional law professor.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

No I'm saying BOTH sides are wrong. The Supreme court will determine constitutionality, that is it's role. In both cases.

According to Obama, it is not the role of the court if the law was passed by the Congress. Do you agree with him?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

What he was saying, IMO, is that the Court is supposed to give deference to duly passed legislation and the inquiry is more in the nature of trying to find a way to uphold it as opposed to trying to find a way to strike it down.

The way you put it, it looks like he was trying to influence their decision.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Given that he graduated magna cum laude, president of Harvard Law Review, and taught con-law at one of the country's best law schools, it's pretty clear that he knows better than anyone here.

So how do you explain what he said and how he said it?
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

So how do you explain what he said and how he said it?

This is really becoming laugh-out-loud funny.

Every time that poor bugger makes a statement that isn't on his teleprompter interpreters have to come out immediately after and make the claim that "What he really meant to say was..." or "Of course the President didn't mean that....".

Actually when a nation is $16 trillion in debt and counting it might not be so funny after all.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

only the mandate will get shot down if anything is. And that can easily be a positive thing for Obama since he never wanted it.


Not so sure about that being as the Justices voted much to quickly to have gone over the whole 2700 pages of the law and being the mandate didn't have a separation clause if they were going to strike down the mandate, they very well could have scraped the whole dang thing.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

So how do you explain what he said and how he said it?

Pssssst: he's a politician.

His comments were really shocking, though, weren't they? Weren't they?

 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Pssssst: he's a politician.

His comments were really shocking, though, weren't they? Weren't they?



Since 2000, conservatives and Republicans have been compaining about "Activist Judges legislating from the bench." Why don't people appreciate the humor of Obama camplaining about Activist Judges on the Right?

/
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Since 2000, conservatives and Republicans have been compaining about "Activist Judges legislating from the bench." Why don't people appreciate the humor of Obama camplaining about Activist Judges on the Right?

/

Because people on the right generally don't have a sense of humor...
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

No, I answered it. Again, you not liking the answer is not the same thing as me not answering. Why don't you try responding to what I actually wrote instead of pretending I didn't write it?



How many?



I still don't see an answer. :shrug:
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

How many?



I still don't see an answer. :shrug:

You're still pretending. Respond to what I wrote and I'd be happy to discuss it.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

You're still pretending. Respond to what I wrote and I'd be happy to discuss it.



Cuántos.... Cuántos.... How many? you haven't answered the question.


Please list examples, where the government fines you for not buying a product or service. Gracias!
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Cuántos.... Cuántos.... How many? you haven't answered the question.


Please list examples, where the government fines you for not buying a product or service. Gracias!

Asked and answered -- move on, counselor.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Asked and answered -- move on, counselor.



In what post did you give me a number?



Here, I'll give you a number, 0, your case, is dismissed, with prejudice, counselor. :pimpdaddy:
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Since 2000, conservatives and Republicans have been compaining about "Activist Judges legislating from the bench." Why don't people appreciate the humor of Obama camplaining about Activist Judges on the Right?

/
It was stupid when the conservatives said it.... It is stupid when the liberals are saying it now.
The SCOTUS is doing the job it was put in place to do. Rule on the constitutionality of a law to check the power of the other two branches.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

In what post did you give me a number?



Here, I'll give you a number, 0, your case, is dismissed, with prejudice, counselor. :pimpdaddy:

I gave you examples, and reasoning. I would have to go through the tax code with a fine tooth comb to come with a total number.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

I gave you examples, and reasoning. I would have to go through the tax code with a fine tooth comb to come with a total number.




You did no such thing... You made a loose connection that did not apply. The number is 0.,
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

You did no such thing... You made a loose connection that did not apply. The number is 0.,

I guess I better repost my original response so you can finally respond to it.

"See, what you don't seem to get is that Congress can already do most, if not all of those things, because a tax penalty has exactly the same effect as a tax credit. So, to use someone else's example, handing out a $4,000 tax credit for installing solar panels is functionally identical to handing out a $4,000 tax penalty for NOT installing solar panels. See how this works? If Jon and Bob both have to pay $5,000 in taxes on unadjusted gross income, but Bob actually only has to pay $1,000 because he got a $4,000 tax credit for installing solar panels, Jon has effectively been penalized $4,000 for not installing solar panels.

Or to use your examlple, Congress IS penalizing people for not going to college, because interest on student loans is deductible. Thus, if you don't have student loans your tax bill is higher than someone else's tax bill who does have student loans -- JUST like a penalty.

IOW, EVERY TAX PREFERENCE IS A "MANDATE" in the same sense that the AHCA penalty is a mandate."

So now we've established that Congress has required people to buy solar panels, and to go to college. I'll add that Congress requires people to purchase homes, and employers to provide health insurance. These are all mandates in the same sense that the PPACA "mandates" that individuals buy health insurance.

:popcorn2:
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Oh no, a repeat of the silly stuff from before. :bolt
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

I guess I better repost my original response so you can finally respond to it.

"See, what you don't seem to get is that Congress can already do most, if not all of those things, because a tax penalty has exactly the same effect as a tax credit. So, to use someone else's example, handing out a $4,000 tax credit for installing solar panels is functionally identical to handing out a $4,000 tax penalty for NOT installing solar panels. See how this works? If Jon and Bob both have to pay $5,000 in taxes on unadjusted gross income, but Bob actually only has to pay $1,000 because he got a $4,000 tax credit for installing solar panels, Jon has effectively been penalized $4,000 for not installing solar panels.

Or to use your examlple, Congress IS penalizing people for not going to college, because interest on student loans is deductible. Thus, if you don't have student loans your tax bill is higher than someone else's tax bill who does have student loans -- JUST like a penalty.

IOW, EVERY TAX PREFERENCE IS A "MANDATE" in the same sense that the AHCA penalty is a mandate."

So now we've established that Congress has required people to buy solar panels, and to go to college. I'll add that Congress requires people to purchase homes, and employers to provide health insurance. These are all mandates in the same sense that the PPACA "mandates" that individuals buy health insurance.

:popcorn2:



like I said, you are stretching it so thin, I would not skate on it.... So if I don't install new windows, I'm being assessed a $1500 tax penalty, for not installing new windows with the tax credit that get's offered for doing so?


That has to be one of the silliest arguments I've heard..... :lamo
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

like I said, you are stretching it so thin, I would not skate on it.... So if I don't install new windows, I'm being assessed a $1500 tax penalty, for not installing new windows with the tax credit that get's offered for doing so?


That has to be one of the silliest arguments I've heard..... :lamo


Sounds the same to me. If you are filing taxes, and you get a deduction, or incentive, for having health insurance, it is the same thing as having a tax penalty for not having health insurance.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Sounds the same to me. If you are filing taxes, and you get a deduction, or incentive, for having health insurance, it is the same thing as having a tax penalty for not having health insurance.

Exactly, but he won't actually address the argument. His response rises to the level of "IS NOT!" And then he just asks the same question all over again, as if the answer will be any different.
 
Re: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Cou

Sounds the same to me. If you are filing taxes, and you get a deduction, or incentive, for having health insurance, it is the same thing as having a tax penalty for not having health insurance.



It's a silly argument, tax incentives to get you to spend money =/= to fining someone for not getting health insurance to the government's standards, no matter how much whining AdamT does, :prof
 
Back
Top Bottom