• 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 Health-Care Reform Act Ruled Unconstitutional(edited)

I've asked in other threads without any evidence presented. Perhaps you have this evidence and can post it please?

I challenge anyone to watch the attached and then come back here and defend Obamacare as something that will lower costs, lower the deficit, improve quality, and increase the quantity of doctors and hospitals. The story that some very good and decent people have ignored as they bought the liberal rhetoric because that is what they want to believe. Very frustrating the brainwashing that is going on and the total lack of understanding how the CBO works. Being non partisan means they take the information they get and don't change it.

GOP Rep. Paul Ryan Tears Down the ObamaCare Fiscal House of Cards - Patriot Action Network
 
And that changes my viewpoint how?

your view is relatively insignificant

at least in comparison to senators conrad's, lieberman's, nelson's, webb's, baucus'...

party on

tell us more about your views, they're fascinating

what's your favorite color?
 
I've asked in other threads without any evidence presented. Perhaps you have this evidence and can post it please?

I can post more evidence if you'd like; but since you keep ignoring the evidence that I've already provided, I think I'll pass on re-posting that evidence just to have you ignore it again. I'm not playing that game.
 
your view is relatively insignificant

at least in comparison to senators conrad's, lieberman's, nelson's, webb's, baucus'...

party on

tell us more about your views, they're fascinating

what's your favorite color?

So, you're viewpoint matters, but mine is insignificant? Another typical con...yaaaawwn...Judging by your childish post, I can safely assume that you're just a 12 yr old smart ass. Good to know. Then I won't bother talking to you.
 
Apparently so because you cannot defend your position but buy the rhetoric from all those leftwing sites without every considering the consequences. Why do you believe in the absence of any evidence that the public option will lower healthcare costs to you?

You have some passion for this issue and the question is why? Why do you use the 50 million uninsured number without identifying who makes up those numbers? Ever think of why politicians really want national healthcare?

Absence of any evidence? According to whom? World Net Daily? Glenn Beck? The public option would lower costs by giving health insurers competition. You disagree? Great. I don't care. You have yet to prove that it won't bring down costs.

Will you let the 50 million go already? I already addressed it. I even admitted that the number may be lower. But whether the number is 50, 35, or 20 million, it's still unacceptable to have that many people uninsured in the USA. I'm sorry you disagree, but that doesn't really matter to me.
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

You call that a partisan attack? You just cannot defend your position and that frustrates you. I couldn't defend it either.

I have defended my position. You're just upset that I won't tell you that you're right and I'm wrong. Sorry. Maybe somebody else will roll over for you, but not me.
 
Absence of any evidence? According to whom? World Net Daily? Glenn Beck? The public option would lower costs by giving health insurers competition. You disagree? Great. I don't care. You have yet to prove that it won't bring down costs.

Will you let the 50 million go already? I already addressed it. I even admitted that the number may be lower. But whether the number is 50, 35, or 20 million, it's still unacceptable to have that many people uninsured in the USA. I'm sorry you disagree, but that doesn't really matter to me.

HOW DARE YOU put that conspiracy-nut rag World Net Daily in the same category as Glenn Beck....World Net Daily deserves more respect than that :mrgreen:
 
Absence of any evidence? According to whom? World Net Daily? Glenn Beck? The public option would lower costs by giving health insurers competition. You disagree? Great. I don't care. You have yet to prove that it won't bring down costs.

Will you let the 50 million go already? I already addressed it. I even admitted that the number may be lower. But whether the number is 50, 35, or 20 million, it's still unacceptable to have that many people uninsured in the USA. I'm sorry you disagree, but that doesn't really matter to me.

The facts, Sgt, the facts, those that have the public option and those that have a single payer system all have increasing healthcare costs. It doesn't take much research to find that what you want here is being dismantled in other countries and the question is why?

I am still waiting for you to breakdown the 50 million number of uninsured. How many in that number can afford healthcare but CHOOSE not to purchase it? How many are illegal's, how many are eligible for healthcare but haven't signed up? How many then are left? Why do you think politicians want national healthcare?
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

I have defended my position. You're just upset that I won't tell you that you're right and I'm wrong. Sorry. Maybe somebody else will roll over for you, but not me.

Here, educate yourself, do we need Obamacare to handle those who truly cannot afford healthcare?

Page 34 I believe will give you the numbers of non U.S. citizens as well as income levels of the uninsured. What gives the govt. the right to demand that U.S. citizens buy healthcare?

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf
 
Alright, I won't deny that.

Now, I ask you...to see if you'll show equal amount of honesty. Was the health care plan you're speaking about introduced by "republicans" in the 1990's widely regarded by most republicans as being ideal? Did it have extremely wide reaching support? Did it quickly lose the vast majority of its supports the moment actual definitive numbers came out about the cost of it? Was it the only plan introduced by Republicans or was it one of many aimed at providing a "compromised" alternative to Hillary's HC plan?

Your continual presentation acts and implies as if this was some gigantic, Republican loved, solidly backed and pushed, roundly supported idea. Is that what you're implying, or are you simply taking something a handful of Republicans supported for a short bit of time and quickly rejected and attempting to use it as some kind of measuring stick for what Republicans as a whole should always support as "their idea"?

I don't know the whole history behind the individual mandate; but I do know that it was a Republican idea. Whether or not it was supported by a majority of Republicans is irrelevant. I realize that plenty of conservatives opposed it for whatever reason, but that doesn't change the fact that it was part of the official Republican alternative to "HillaryCare". Many Republicans played a role in the planning. Some, like one of the architects of the individual mandate, are scratching their heads at the GOP's new opposition to it.


[T]he individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time."

Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s — when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "

The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."

One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.

"We called this responsible national health insurance," says Pauly. "There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens."

And how does economist Pauly feel about the GOP's retreat from the individual mandate they used to promote? "That's not something that makes me particularly happy," he says.

Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate : NPR

“The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea,’’ said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits — two ideas that are now part of Obama’s law. Pauly’s paper was well-received — by the George H.W. Bush administration.

“It could have been the basis for a bipartisan compromise, but it wasn’t,’’ said Pauly. “Because the Democrats were in favor, the Republicans more or less had to be against it.’’

Health insurance mandate began as a Republican idea - The Boston Globe

And as recently as 2006, Mitt Romney was in love with the idea.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as “a personal responsibility principle’’ and Massachusetts’ newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama’s plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

Romney’s success in Massachusetts with a bipartisan health plan that featured a mandate put the idea on the table for the 2008 presidential candidates.

Brown, whose election to replace the late Democratic Edward M. Kennedy almost led to the collapse of Obama’s plan, said his opposition to the new law is over tax increases, Medicare cuts, and federal overreach on a matter that he says should be left up to states. Not so much the requirement, which he voted for as a state lawmaker. “In Massachusetts, it helped us deal with the very real problem of uncompensated care,’’ Brown said.

Health insurance mandate began as a Republican idea - The Boston Globe
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

I don't need to explain it to you. Constitutional scholars are betting that it's covered by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. I'm no constitutional expert. BUt their argument makes sense to me. It will ultimately be decided by the SCOTUS.

You can wait all you like on that other point. According to recent surveys, 50 million are uninsured. Prove them wrong. Even if it's more like 35 million, that's still a huge number of uninsured; and in the US, that's unacceptable.
Which constitutional scholars are you speaking of?
 
So, you're viewpoint matters, but mine is insignificant? Another typical con...yaaaawwn...Judging by your childish post, I can safely assume that you're just a 12 yr old smart ass. Good to know. Then I won't bother talking to you.

Careful what you say there buddy.
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

Here, educate yourself, do we need Obamacare to handle those who truly cannot afford healthcare?

Page 34 I believe will give you the numbers of non U.S. citizens as well as income levels of the uninsured. What gives the govt. the right to demand that U.S. citizens buy healthcare?

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf

Look, I don't agree with your position. How many times do I have to say it? Like I said, the exact number of uninsured is irrelevant. 20, 30, 50 million uninsured in the USA is unacceptable.

According to the constitutional scholars who worked on this law, the commerce clause of the Constitution gives the gov't the right to require people to purchase health insurance. But ultimately, it will be decided by the SCOTUS. You won't change my mind on this subject.

We disagree. I don't care. And I'm not wasting any more time saying the same thing again and again. It's pointless.
 
I don't know the whole history behind the individual mandate; but I do know that it was a Republican idea. Whether or not it was supported by a majority of Republicans is irrelevant. I realize that plenty of conservatives opposed it for whatever reason, but that doesn't change the fact that it was part of the official Republican alternative to "HillaryCare". Many Republicans played a role in the planning. Some, like one of the architects of the individual mandate, are scratching their heads at the GOP's new opposition to it.


And as recently as 2006, Mitt Romney was in love with the idea.

You do realize that the states can do an individual mandate if the citizens of the state approve it, don't you? That is what MA has done and yet the costs there continue to skyrocket destroying your argument.
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

Sgt Meowenstein;1059260318]Look, I don't agree with your position. How many times do I have to say it? Like I said, the exact number of uninsured is irrelevant. 20, 30, 50 million uninsured in the USA is unacceptable.

Unacceptable to whom? You would implement Obamacare to cover 15 million Americans who cannot afford healthcare instead of letting the states and local communities handle their own problems? That is very expensive and naive on your part with someone else's money.

According to the constitutional scholars who worked on this law, the commerce clause of the Constitution gives the gov't the right to require people to purchase health insurance. But ultimately, it will be decided by the SCOTUS. You won't change my mind on this subject.

The commerce clause has been abused many times over the years but healthcare isn't a commerce item. You cannot force people to pay for inactivity.

We disagree. I don't care. And I'm not wasting any more time saying the same thing again and again. It's pointless


That is what liberals always do, run when challenged and ignore anything that refutes your opinions. The brainwashing is incredible on the part of the left. Why do you continue to buy the lies?
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

Is it ironic, or just funny, that our 'Constitutional scholar' President has now had two different judges declare the 'mandate' portion of the healthcare law 'un-Constitutional'?
 
So, you're viewpoint matters, but mine is insignificant?

i don't offer my opinions, sir, because i respect that to others they are of little value

instead, i link

the public option is complete non starter in our contemporary political landscape

it's more than 20 votes short in upper parliament, according to the hill, according to cnn, according to tpm, according to the still sitting budget chair...

stay up
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

Is it ironic, or just funny, that our 'Constitutional scholar' President has now had two different judges declare the 'mandate' portion of the healthcare law 'Constitutional'?

I changed a bit of your post. It's still factually correct. See how irrelevant that argument is?
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

even the casual consitutionalist recognizes that in the world of us districts two to two is no tie

read why

Obamacare supporters will say the judicial score is tied: Two federal courts have upheld Obamacare, and two have declared part of it constitutional. But two against two among federal district courts is not a tie. District judges, whether state or federal, are risk-averse when interpreting the law. District judges preside over trial courts. They normally apply established law to the facts before them. Deciding questions of law is primarily the work of appellate courts.

Federal district judges, in particular, do not like being reversed by appellate judges. Frequent reversals are not good for one's ego or the reputation. Federal district judges naturally know, without consulting statistics, that very few federal statutes are declared unconstitutional. So given the probabilities, it's much safer and easier for a lone federal district judge to declare federal statutes constitutional. Just leave it to the panel of three appellate judges to consider more carefully whether a statute is unconstitutional. That's what appellate judges are paid to do.

Because of this, the two decisions against Obamacare are much more significant than the two that upheld the legislation. For a judge to declare a federal statute unconstitutional, his or her opinion better be extremely well reasoned within existing case law. Predictably, many who disagree with the result in controversial cases will charge that the decision is a political one. Therefore, judicial opinions in highly scrutinized cases must necessarily go to great lengths to persuade readers that the decision is based on established constitutional principles. That usually requires quite a lengthy written opinion.

Monday's decision was long (78 pages) and very carefully reasoned. It needed to be, given its widespread consequences. Usually, a decision against a federal statute by a district court will have an immediate effect only within the particular federal district. In this case, however, 26 states, some individuals and the National Federation of Independent Business were plaintiffs. All get the benefit of the declaratory judgment, even without an injunction. That means that until an appellate court decides otherwise, Obamacare is not applicable in 26 states, nor apparently to members of the NFIB in other states.

Opinion: Obamacare Is in Critical Condition With the Courts
 
I can post more evidence if you'd like; but since you keep ignoring the evidence that I've already provided, I think I'll pass on re-posting that evidence just to have you ignore it again. I'm not playing that game.

I'd like something that isn't your opinion or claims. Like a bill # which Republicans provided as a mandate to this healthcare bill, like an interview with the majority or minority Republican leader saying that the mandate is needed. That is evidence ... your continuing to make a claim with nothing supporting it is called: an unsupported opinion.
 
I'd like something that isn't your opinion or claims. Like a bill # which Republicans provided as a mandate to this healthcare bill, like an interview with the majority or minority Republican leader saying that the mandate is needed. That is evidence ... your continuing to make a claim with nothing supporting it is called: an unsupported opinion.

Seriously? I posted multiple quotes - some from REPUBLICANS - backing up the FACT that the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. How can you continue to claim otherwise when you've been shown over and over and over that you are flat out WRONG. Jesus Christ, I've seen Tyrannosaurus Rexs with thinner skulls.
 
i don't offer my opinions, sir, because i respect that to others they are of little value

instead, i link

the public option is complete non starter in our contemporary political landscape

it's more than 20 votes short in upper parliament, according to the hill, according to cnn, according to tpm, according to the still sitting budget chair...

stay up

Good for you. You're a big boy. Would you like a gold star or a cookie?
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

Unacceptable to whom? You would implement Obamacare to cover 15 million Americans who cannot afford healthcare instead of letting the states and local communities handle their own problems? That is very expensive and naive on your part with someone else's money.

Great. That's your opinion. Your opinion isn't fact. You seem to have trouble separating the two.

The commerce clause has been abused many times over the years but healthcare isn't a commerce item. You cannot force people to pay for inactivity.

Until the SCOTUS says otherwise, the mandate is in place. You can call it unconstitutional all you like, but that doesn't make it so.

That is what liberals always do, run when challenged and ignore anything that refutes your opinions. The brainwashing is incredible on the part of the left. Why do you continue to buy the lies?

Wow, what a ****ing joke. I have repeatedly stated my position on this subject. You have repeatedly stated yours. You act like you've given me stone cold facts. You haven't. You have given me a typical conservative take on things. I'm not sure if you're aware of this; but political ideals aren't facts. So if I choose not to buy into your conservative argument, that doesn't mean that I have been bested or that I'm running away. It simply means that I don't agree with you. And I'm not going to post the same argument over and over.

I'm sure you must be very proud of yourself. Don't be. The only thing you've proven is that you are a partisan right-winger. I have news for you: your opinion is not the only one out there.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

even the casual consitutionalist recognizes that in the world of us districts two to two is no tie

read why



Opinion: Obamacare Is in Critical Condition With the Courts

The first word in your link makes it arbitrary.

Even if all the appellate courts declare it unconstitutional, one or the other side will appeal until it gets to the SCOTUS and they have the final say, regardless of what previous decisions have been. There's been multiple cases where the SCOTUS has a different ruling than every court who ruled before them.

Why argue the count? The SCOTUS has the final say. It's not like they're going to make their decision by tallying up what judges before them have said.
 
I don't know the whole history behind the individual mandate; but I do know that it was a Republican idea. Whether or not it was supported by a majority of Republicans is irrelevant. I realize that plenty of conservatives opposed it for whatever reason, but that doesn't change the fact that it was part of the official Republican alternative to "HillaryCare". Many Republicans played a role in the planning. Some, like one of the architects of the individual mandate, are scratching their heads at the GOP's new opposition to it.

Its fun watching someone bitch about people not owning up to facts, and then watching them spit out pure falsehoods while also showing they don't bother to research their own facts.

First, there was no real official "republican" health care bill. There was one penned by oft criticized former Republican Lincoln Chafee that did get a significant amount of support for a short time as a possible "compromise" bill, one such compromise being the individual mandate. However within a few months the mandate, and the bill, was roundly criticized and rejected by a majority of Republicans including those previously supporting it, the AMA, and the CBO. You also had the Cooper-Grady health care proposal out there as a possible Republican backed proposal along with the Rowland/Bilirakis one and not that long after the Packwood-Dole which was just as largely supported by Republicans as the Chafee plan and it rejected the idea of an individual mandate. So stating it was some kind of "Official" uniformed Republican preference is an absolute absurdity and highlights the hypocrisy of you complaining about others being honest when you spew such rhetoric yourself. Taking ONE republican backed plan during a time when they were completely out of control of the government and had to put forth compromised bills that gave ground to the other side in hopes of having any shot of legitimately potentially getting something passed as the "OFFICIAL" stance of "REPUBLIACNS" while ignoring other competing bills and wide scale rejection of said bill within a few months time is ridiculously disingenuous. At best you could say it was the stance of a majority of Senate Republicans, and that's about as far as you can get.

Secondly, attempting to attribute individuals within a parties ideas as some sort of party wide stance is ridiculous. Shall I find a singular Democrat suggesting pro-life and suggest then that pro-life is the Democratic Parties stance? Shall I find a singular bill penned by a Democrat pushing for the banning of all handguns as proof that it is the Democratic Parties idea of gun control? Shall we ignore that one of Romeny's largest problems during the primary was his actions surrounding health care in Massachusetts and he's rounded stated that such a thing was the right choice based on his constituents desires at a state level but not something he'd suggest for the federal? Your logic has so many holes in it and your hypocrisy is so transparent that your post might as well best be described as a pane of glass mimicing swiss cheese.

Thirdly, the idea of an individual mandate as the only method of allowing the government for force insurance companies to stop denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions is a legitimate one. It also just happens to be an unconstitutional one. Thus the problem. Its the only thing that even gets close to making the notion the Democrats are pushing "doable", and even that is a stretch, and yet to do so would be to act in a way that is unconstitutional...which is what makes the entire thing problematic to begin with and something the government shouldn't be doing due to the damage it will cause.

I don't deny that at some point some republicans had the ideas about the individual mandate. However the constistant labeling it as a "Republican Idea" as if that gives it credance, makes it some "official stance", or suggest that conservatives by and large are automatically hypocritical for disagreeing with it as if its some kind of unconditional truth of conservatism...as your use of the "republican idea" meme continually implies and suggests...is as dishonest as going through threads repeatedly suggesting that Democrats support banning all guns.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom