• 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

Does that mean if no coverage has been used, as in the insurance company didn't pay out any money, then the person gets all their premiums refunded?

If they rescind a contract, yes. All premium is returned to the client. I've actually rescinded a few contracts. These aren't innocent people that made a mistake. These were people that lied on the contract. There is no way they couldn't have realized that they were lying.

I am no longer in the claims area, but I know agents that will write life policies for a client. The client will almost always swear they are in perfect health - but the underwriters do their jobs and find out they were lying and the policy can not be issued. It's actually very common.
 
Last edited:
"Judicial Activism" is not striking down a law in order to maintain the limitations on Government set by the Constitution. Judicial Activism is when justices choose to "update" the Constitution to something more in line with their preferences. Classically, this has involved using ever-expanding readings of the 14th Amendment to Judicially Amend the rest of the document, but is not restricted to that. In addition, the theory of Judicial Supremacy falls under the heading of Judicial Activism, and is it's most dangerous component.

Interesting. Any decision you don't like is judicial activism? How nice to have it that way.

:coffeepap
 
SCOTUSBlog has some great summaries up. SCOTUSblog, health care, and a few things you might have missed : SCOTUSblog

I especially recommend all of Lyle's Analysis and Amy's Plain English articles linked at the above link. You will know more after reading them about the arguments after you read them.

Very interesting and good analysis. Though I will say, I found it interesting how all three's take on the individual mandate came from the notion of essentially "What will need to happen for the Government to win the case" stand point. IE...hopefully the mandate stands, and this is how it could happen.
 
Interesting. Any decision you don't like is judicial activism? How nice to have it that way.

:coffeepap

Interesting. You enjoy long walks in the park, the sound of crickets at night, and drinking mohito's while listening to Rick Astley. How nice to have it that way.

:coffeepap

(trying to get inside the head of boo, where people hear one thing and your mind somehow creates an entirely seperate and different statement that you attribute to them and respond to as thus)
 
Interesting. You enjoy long walks in the park, the sound of crickets at night, and drinking mohito's while listening to Rick Astley. How nice to have it that way.

:coffeepap

(trying to get inside the head of boo, where people hear one thing and your mind somehow creates an entirely seperate and different statement that you attribute to them and respond to as thus)

Try harder. ;)

As a conservative, you must know how often your side of the isle screams judicial activism. And somehow, someway, it is always about a ruling you didn't like. Seems like sour grapes to me.
 
That would be against the law. Insurance companies can not drop an insured because they are sick. Material misrepresentation (within the first 2 years of the contract) or the client not paying premiums are the only reasons they can cancel policies. I realize democrats told you they cuold, but they lied to you.

However, even if you were correct, which you aren't, then toughen that up so they can't just drop you for no legal reason. I wouldn't have much problem with that. I doubt any republican would.

No, obviously it's perfectly legal for an insurance (or any) company to drop you at the end of your policy period. Generally that only happens if you have an individual (as opposed to group) coverage. If you have employer-provided coverage you can have the same problem if you are fired, change jobs for another reason, or simply because you're too sick to work. You can continue coverage for awhile under COBRA, but then you and your preexisting condition are on your own. I'd like to see you chat up a woman with metastatic breast cancer who had to leave her job and ended up losing her insurance ... when you tell her to toughen up.
 
How can you possibly call yourself conservative yet be in favor of the gov't forcing you to buy something?
 
How can you possibly call yourself conservative yet be in favor of the gov't forcing you to buy something?

Or to put it another way, how can you call yourself conservative when you are fighting for the right of people to free ride on the backs of those who took personal responsibility for their own health care?

Hey, maybe we should legalize shoplifting, too? It's wrong that people are FORCED to pay for snacks and soft drinks! Why is the government mandating that people eat food?!
 
Last edited:
Try harder. ;)

As a conservative, you must know how often your side of the isle screams judicial activism. And somehow, someway, it is always about a ruling you didn't like. Seems like sour grapes to me.

Oh, I absolutely agree that at times those on the right cry judicial activism when none has been conducted.

However, you have seemingly decided that rather than act differently then them and speak objectively you will simply mirror them in stereotyping and utilizing hyperbole to wrongfully paint any and everything said by a conservative on the issue as being a lie or misrepresentation and that in reality any conservative talking about it must REALLY believe that judicial activisim is just things they dislike.

Cpwill's statement, even if you disagree with it, at least sought to put forward a legitimate definition and line in regards to what judicial activism is in his opinion and gave a fair explanation of it. Essentially his view seems to be that "Judicial Activism" is a process in which judges put forth an affirmative argument that the consitution infers or states something that it doesn't clearly indicate and uses that affirmative argument as the basis for its ruling.

If the court was to rule that the mandate was not constitution, this case would not fit that definition. The courts ruling would not be based on the court finding that there is some constitutional principle not explicately stated in the constitution which inherently disallows the mandate, IE an affirmative argument against it based on a supposed provision of the constitution. Rather, the courts ruling would be based on a negative argument on the part of government that there simply isn't a provision within the constitution that allows them to do such.

While you may disagree with Cpwill's definition of what is or isn't judicial activism, he is clearly and directly stating what the basis for his judgement on the issue is. However, whether than fairly and objectively dealing with his words you've instead chosen to stereotype all conservatives, place that stereotype upon him, and then decree what he "actually" meant through your implications of what his words were stating.
 
Oh, I absolutely agree that at times those on the right cry judicial activism when none has been conducted.

However, you have seemingly decided that rather than act differently then them and speak objectively you will simply mirror them in stereotyping and utilizing hyperbole to wrongfully paint any and everything said by a conservative on the issue as being a lie or misrepresentation and that in reality any conservative talking about it must REALLY believe that judicial activisim is just things they dislike.

Cpwill's statement, even if you disagree with it, at least sought to put forward a legitimate definition and line in regards to what judicial activism is in his opinion and gave a fair explanation of it. Essentially his view seems to be that "Judicial Activism" is a process in which judges put forth an affirmative argument that the consitution infers or states something that it doesn't clearly indicate and uses that affirmative argument as the basis for its ruling.

If the court was to rule that the mandate was not constitution, this case would not fit that definition. The courts ruling would not be based on the court finding that there is some constitutional principle not explicately stated in the constitution which inherently disallows the mandate, IE an affirmative argument against it based on a supposed provision of the constitution. Rather, the courts ruling would be based on a negative argument on the part of government that there simply isn't a provision within the constitution that allows them to do such.

While you may disagree with Cpwill's definition of what is or isn't judicial activism, he is clearly and directly stating what the basis for his judgement on the issue is. However, whether than fairly and objectively dealing with his words you've instead chosen to stereotype all conservatives, place that stereotype upon him, and then decree what he "actually" meant through your implications of what his words were stating.

I know CP pretty well, and he is such a person who sees the court that way. Me poking a little fun at him should not be taken too seriously. Still, he has a history and that history doesn't go away. If this is upheld, I'd bet a cup of coffee (and I don't like giving up my coffee) that he will call it judicial activism.
 
If this is upheld, I'd bet a cup of coffee (and I don't like giving up my coffee) that he will call it judicial activism.

If it is upheld, it WOULD be activism of some sort. Since the constitution not only does not provide government with the power to force people go buy a product from private industry, it also does not provide the power for them to be in the health care business, or the auto business, or many other places it has expanded it's power.

If it is upheld, it will set a precident that government can force citizens to buy things 'for the good of all'. So the out of control, power hungry people in DC will start brainstorming and come up with more they can do to steal more money from those that work, and give it to those that do not, in order to ensure their votes next time around.
 
If it is upheld, it WOULD be activism of some sort. Since the constitution not only does not provide government with the power to force people go buy a product from private industry, it also does not provide the power for them to be in the health care business, or the auto business, or many other places it has expanded it's power.

If it is upheld, it will set a precident that government can force citizens to buy things 'for the good of all'. So the out of control, power hungry people in DC will start brainstorming and come up with more they can do to steal more money from those that work, and give it to those that do not, in order to ensure their votes next time around.

See what I mean?
 
What the news is saying:

Post Politics: Breaking Politics News, Political Analysis & More - The Washington Post

"Supreme Court’s health-care ruling could deal dramatic blow to Obama presidency

U.S. Political News, Opinion and Analysis - HuffPost Politics

"Supreme Court Health Care Decision: Does Worst-Case Scenario Have Bright Side For Obamacare?

Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News | Reuters.com

"Obama lawyer asks Supreme Court to save healthcare law

See all the "know-it-alls" are as confused as those in the hinterlands.
 
Obama care as it was writtin is corporate socialism. A person to literally be born indebted to private, for profit corporations that they must labor weeks out of every year as government mandated servants of that company. If the person does not, the person is stripped off all citizens' rights - including the right to vote, own a firearm etc, all personal property can be seized and the person jailed.

Walt Whitman on Waldon pond would have been a tax evading criminal. You are born obligated to work weeks a year solely to give it to corporate America - those corporations that most buy politicans to get on the approved list. Given $10 million to politicians and they'll give that insurance company $10 billion out of our paychecks. That's the real reality. Doing it as an actuarial, if a person has $100,000 heart surgery cost, the insurance company gets $10,000 - that we paid - for doing nothing but adding another level of paperwork and getting that paperwork wrong 20% of the time. That $10,000 taken from us by the government under every possible threat was not for healthcare. It was paperwork hassles and being on hold begging the insurance company to honor the policy before you die for lack of surgery.

Insurance companies provide exactly zero medical services. They only add another layer of paperwork and delay, skimming off healthcare money. This is not whether the government can require people to pay for healthcare. It is about whether the government can require people to give money to corporations selected by the government for the corporation's profit of no benefit to the citizen whatsoever - those corporations selected upon which most bribes and pays off those within government.

This would be no different than if Congress under Bush passed a law that everyone has to send $1000 to Dick Cheney's Haliburton corporation, claiming national defense is to everyone's benefit and since military equipment is moved about the USA it is a matter of national commerce. The money insurance companies will skim off of every single healthcare dollar every American spends is not for ANY medical service at all. Insurance companies don't provide as much as an aspirin.
 
Last edited:
See what I mean?

Oh, you meant that some people have actually read and understood the constitution and federalist papers? Yeah, some of us have. Obviously some, like yourself, have not.
 
Cpwill's statement, even if you disagree with it, at least sought to put forward a legitimate definition and line in regards to what judicial activism is in his opinion and gave a fair explanation of it. Essentially his view seems to be that "Judicial Activism" is a process in which judges put forth an affirmative argument that the consitution infers or states something that it doesn't clearly indicate and uses that affirmative argument as the basis for its ruling.

The problem with that definition is that everyone who disagrees with a decision thinks that the court put forth an affirmative argument that the constitution infers or states something that it doesn't. Thus, to me, that definition is meaningless. It's the same thing as saying that you disagree with the decision. To me, judicial activism implies a motive, i.e. the court deliberately misconstrued the Constitution in order to substitute its political or philosophical judgment for that of the legislature.
 
If it is upheld, it WOULD be activism of some sort.

By definition it can't be activism if the Court simply let's a piece of legislation stand. Activism means that the Court substituted its judgment for the judgment of our elected representatives.
 
By definition it can't be activism if the Court simply let's a piece of legislation stand. Activism means that the Court substituted its judgment for the judgment of our elected representatives.

If they uphold something because their 'party' supports it, over what the constitution says about the issue, it is activism. It may be activism via inactivity, but it is activism the same.
 
"Judicial Activism" simply means the court is legislating rather than adjudicating.

For example, if the Court came back with "we decided a better way than Obama Care to address healthcare is..." or rewrote the bill to their own designs - and then order it be done.
 
Oh, you meant that some people have actually read and understood the constitution and federalist papers? Yeah, some of us have. Obviously some, like yourself, have not.

I don't think so. I think it is not being able to accept that you lost the argument in court. Both sides look at the law. it is that simple. Don't like it, make a better argument.
 
"Judicial Activism" simply means the court is legislating rather than adjudicating.

For example, if the Court came back with "we decided a better way than Obama Care to address healthcare is..." or rewrote the bill to their own designs - and then order it be done.

I think some people are confused about the term. It is most commonly defined along the lines of " a "philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions.""
 
"Judicial Activism" simply means the court is legislating rather than adjudicating.

For example, if the Court came back with "we decided a better way than Obama Care to address healthcare is..." or rewrote the bill to their own designs - and then order it be done.

yes, they would have to re-write it and not rule on a legal issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom