• 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

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON (AP) — With demonstrators chanting outside, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments Monday on the fate of President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul, no less controversial two years after Democrats pushed it to passage in Congress. Twenty-six states are leading the legal challenge, while Republican presidential candidates are vowing to repeal it after throwing Obama out of office.

Here is my prediction: The Supreme Court will uphold parts of Obamacare, while striking down other parts of the law, specifically the requirement that everybody obtain health insurance or face penalties. While it is true that states require you to purchase car insurance, this is done by the states, NOT by the Federal government, and I believe that this is where SCOTUS will draw the line.

Discussion?

Article is here.
 
states require car insurance.

lenders require flood insurance, including for federally-backed mortgages.
 
Here is my prediction: The Supreme Court will uphold parts of Obamacare, while striking down other parts of the law, specifically the requirement that everybody obtain health insurance or face penalties. While it is true that states require you to purchase car insurance, this is done by the states, NOT by the Federal government, and I believe that this is where SCOTUS will draw the line.

Discussion?

Article is here.

They are going to punt on the individual mandate. Since you cannot sue about taxes until after you have gone into effect, and that portion does not go into effect till 2014, they will not rule on that portion. They actually have ~1/3 of the time scheduled to discuss standing on that portion of the suit.
 
They are going to punt on the individual mandate. Since you cannot sue about taxes until after you have gone into effect, and that portion does not go into effect till 2014, they will not rule on that portion. They actually have ~1/3 of the time scheduled to discuss standing on that portion of the suit.

You assume they will consider it a "tax." That was a cover which was invented only after questions of constitutionality under the Commerce Clause arose.
 
Here is my prediction: The Supreme Court will uphold parts of Obamacare, while striking down other parts of the law, specifically the requirement that everybody obtain health insurance or face penalties. While it is true that states require you to purchase car insurance, this is done by the states, NOT by the Federal government, and I believe that this is where SCOTUS will draw the line.

Discussion?

Article is here.

I'm hoping the mandate portion is identified as unconstitutional, because I believe it is in my opinion. There are sections of the bill that do make sense and that should be kept but the main issue for me is, no matter what happens - ObamaCare has to be scrapped financially and reworked.... the cost savings are not there. The costs are 1.2 trillion higher than expected which means politicians over promised as politicians often do, and now reality sets in. We'll go broke. If portions of it like the mandate are struck down, we'll STILL have to rework it because the bill basically cannot fund itself, so it'll have to be reworked anyway. It could go into a single payer system, it could be a system which allows competition across state lines, it could include a total restructuring of health care such that the "insurance" we use isn't used as a payment plan, but is actually used as insurance.

There's a few ways it could go that would be BETTER... but I have faith in our political system to **** it up royally and choose a worse option than ObamaCare. After all... the more politicians **** our lives up, the more job security they have by taking the next 30 years to "fix" it.
 
states require car insurance.

lenders require flood insurance, including for federally-backed mortgages.

States do not require people to purchase cars, nor purchase houses.... which invalidates your "requirement" argument as it applies to ObamaCare and the mandate.
 
the first ruling will be whether the penalty amounts to a tax.

The problem is the Anti-Injunction Act, which dates to 1867. It says, “No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.”

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.
 
States do not require people to purchase cars, nor purchase houses.... which invalidates your "requirement" argument as it applies to ObamaCare and the mandate.

states require parents to feed, cloth, house, & educate their children.

you think these things are free?
 
Here is my prediction: The Supreme Court will uphold parts of Obamacare, while striking down other parts of the law, specifically the requirement that everybody obtain health insurance or face penalties. While it is true that states require you to purchase car insurance, this is done by the states, NOT by the Federal government, and I believe that this is where SCOTUS will draw the line.

Discussion?

Article is here.

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.
 
states require parents to feed, cloth, house, & educate their children.

you think these things are free?

The government doesn't require people to have children either.
 
states require parents to feed, cloth, house, & educate their children.

you think these things are free?

States don't force people to have kids.

Drinking mountain dew and posting when I should be working. :) VIA taptalk.
 
They are going to punt on the individual mandate. Since you cannot sue about taxes until after you have gone into effect, and that portion does not go into effect till 2014, they will not rule on that portion. They actually have ~1/3 of the time scheduled to discuss standing on that portion of the suit.

You bring up an excellent point. The first argument SCOTUS is going to hear is whether the court is going to be allowed to hear the case at all, at this time. I have just read up on the Anti-Injunction Act, and now believe that this case could be punted to the year 2015. What they will be deciding is whether a tax code penalty is the same thing as a tax. If it is, the case gets punted. If not, then SCOTUS continues to hear the case.
 
Last edited:
States do not require people to purchase cars, nor purchase houses.... which invalidates your "requirement" argument as it applies to ObamaCare and the mandate.

But they do require insurance if you already have a car. Everybody already has emergency health insurance and will be treated at any emergency room in the country regardless of ability to pay. That "insurance" is now free, the law only asks that all peopel now pay for it. Is that your problem? Paying for insurance that used to be free?
 
But they do require insurance if you already have a car. Everybody already has emergency health insurance and will be treated at any emergency room in the country regardless of ability to pay. That "insurance" is now free, the law only asks that all peopel now pay for it. Is that your problem? Paying for insurance that used to be free?

very, very good point.

currently, ALL Americans have free, taxpayer-funded emergency health insurance. Its called Medicaid.

the govt. is now simply asking Americans to PAY for this insurance, rather than getting it from the taxpayers.
 
very, very good point.

currently, ALL Americans have free, taxpayer-funded emergency health insurance. Its called Medicaid.

the govt. is now simply asking Americans to PAY for this insurance, rather than getting it from the taxpayers.

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?
 
But they do require insurance if you already have a car. Everybody already has emergency health insurance and will be treated at any emergency room in the country regardless of ability to pay. That "insurance" is now free, the law only asks that all peopel now pay for it. Is that your problem? Paying for insurance that used to be free?

If the person then pays taxes they already pay for it. Why should they be fined bylthe government.

Drinking mountain dew and posting when I should be working. :) VIA taptalk.
 
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?

um...with govt. help.

maybe you shouldn't comment on ObamaCare, if you are unfamiliar with the details of ObamaCare.
 
um...with govt. help.

maybe you shouldn't comment on ObamaCare, if you are unfamiliar with the details of ObamaCare.

Which begs the question: what the hell's the real objective of Obamacare, to begin with?
 
Here is my prediction: The Supreme Court will uphold parts of Obamacare, while striking down other parts of the law, specifically the requirement that everybody obtain health insurance or face penalties. While it is true that states require you to purchase car insurance, this is done by the states, NOT by the Federal government, and I believe that this is where SCOTUS will draw the line.

Discussion?

Article is here.

The thing with car insurance is that you buy it to protect yourself from other drivers, theft, vandalism, and acts of God (hail damage etc), and it also protects other drivers if you happen to be a negligent driver. With health insurance, you buy it so that you can afford health care if a catastrophic or chronic condition arises, and you don't have the resources to pay for prohibitively expensive medical care.
 
I'm hoping the mandate portion is identified as unconstitutional, because I believe it is in my opinion. There are sections of the bill that do make sense and that should be kept but the main issue for me is, no matter what happens - ObamaCare has to be scrapped financially and reworked.... the cost savings are not there. The costs are 1.2 trillion higher than expected which means politicians over promised as politicians often do, and now reality sets in. We'll go broke. If portions of it like the mandate are struck down, we'll STILL have to rework it because the bill basically cannot fund itself, so it'll have to be reworked anyway. It could go into a single payer system, it could be a system which allows competition across state lines, it could include a total restructuring of health care such that the "insurance" we use isn't used as a payment plan, but is actually used as insurance.

There's a few ways it could go that would be BETTER... but I have faith in our political system to **** it up royally and choose a worse option than ObamaCare. After all... the more politicians **** our lives up, the more job security they have by taking the next 30 years to "fix" it.

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.
 
Which is irrelevant to whether it is or is not a tax.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom