Supreme Court health care arguments under way

jet57 said:

Have you all heard the latest? Of course, justice Scalia doesn't want to read the whole bill; the other justices are having their clerks read the entire bill so that the justices know what they're talking about; but not Scalia: he doesn't think that ruling on the constutionality a law presented to the citizens of the United States should include a clear and knowledgeable understanding to effect the US Constitution; just the stuff that Scalia [/i]wants to look at[/i] . . .

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Won't Read Health Care Law

and the right keeps wronging

Click to expand...

and have you read the whole bill and understand it completely?

I will admit I have read sections, but there is no way I read every page.

Anytime the courts rule against anything someone is for, they whine "judicial activism." Usually it's the rightwingers. Funny how you don't see them whining about the "judicial activism" now.

jet57 said:

Have you all heard the latest? Of course, justice Scalia doesn't want to read the whole bill; the other justices are having their clerks read the entire bill so that the justices know what they're talking about; but not Scalia: he doesn't think that ruling on the constutionality a law presented to the citizens of the United States should include a clear and knowledgeable understanding to effect the US Constitution; just the stuff that Scalia [/i]wants to look at[/i] . . .

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Won't Read Health Care Law

and the right keeps wronging

Click to expand...

Do you have some kind of support for your assertions that all the other Justices are having their clerks read the law, and Scalia isn't? 'Coz the little blurb you linked to says nothing of the kind.

Boo Radley said:

I don't think I'm confusing things, and as I recall, Atticus back in the day did a pretty good job showing how much Universities do. And yes, I asked why, and you gave an opinion on why. I responded by saying I didn't buy it and stated why. I don't see anyone confused.

Click to expand...

Well, if you want to go through life only addressing half of what is before you, with opinion, and dismissal then have at it....I think I'll try that with your inane pap from now on....All I have to do is say I don't think so....


j-mac

Captain America said:

Anytime the courts rule against anything someone is for, they whine "judicial activism." Usually it's the rightwingers. Funny how you don't see them whining about the "judicial activism" now.

Click to expand...

They will if it goes differently than they think it will.

Captain America said:

Anytime the courts rule against anything someone is for, they whine "judicial activism." Usually it's the rightwingers. Funny how you don't see them whining about the "judicial activism" now.

Click to expand...

That would be because it isn't.


j-mac

j-mac said:

Well, if you want to go through life only addressing half of what is before you, with opinion, and dismissal then have at it....I think I'll try that with your inane pap from now on....All I have to do is say I don't think so....


j-mac

Click to expand...

I don't think I did that. What do you think I didn't address?

Did you mean life saving cost? We do pass that along. They pay for it straight up. I thought you knew that supports my position.

Boo Radley said:

I don't think I did that. What do you think I didn't address?

Click to expand...

You can read, I suggest you go back and start with the original hypothetical you dismissed out of hand, and see if you can expand on your answer to actually look like you are saying something other than 'nuh-uh'....


j-amc

j-mac said:

You can read, I suggest you go back and start with the original hypothetical you dismissed out of hand, and see if you can expand on your answer to actually look like you are saying something other than 'nuh-uh'....


j-amc

Click to expand...

Are you speaking about his hypothetical? I did answer that one. Nothing has been dismissed out of hand. Explain yourself.

AdamT said:

How many times do YOU have to be told that the health care industry is anything but a free market?

Click to expand...

What the hell does that have to do with you determining that people are paid too much? Are you going to define those terms as asked, or skip out like a liberal?

Captain America said:

Anytime the courts rule against anything someone is for, they whine "judicial activism." Usually it's the rightwingers. Funny how you don't see them whining about the "judicial activism" now.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you actually need to learn the definition of "judicial activism" vs "law". Judicial Activism is basing your decision solely on personal opinion or political reasoning, where as judges are supposed to rule on the law.

In this case, its quite evident, based on the line of questioning of all judges, that the law, which at this level is the Constitution, doesn't support forced commerce. Most of the judges have all made comments that the law's intent is to be helpful, in so many words, and to make a judgment made on the merits of "its helpful" would be Judicial Activism, but its actually implementation is not allowed by the enumerated powers of the Federal Government.

xpiher said:

tossing out the entire law would be judicial activism because there isn't any dispute of the other posts of the law being constitutional.

Click to expand...

If it is determined the whole basis of obamacare is the mandate, that like one of the judges pointed out, without the mandate this is a different law, then NO, it is not activism.

Boo Radley said:

Are you speaking about his hypothetical? I did answer that one. Nothing has been dismissed out of hand. Explain yourself.

Click to expand...

No, you didn't, that is why I asked what I did, now do as I say son, and read, then answer....heh, heh...


j-mac

Samhain said:

Perhaps you actually need to learn the definition of "judicial activism" vs "law". Judicial Activism is basing your decision solely on personal opinion or political reasoning, where as judges are supposed to rule on the law.

In this case, its quite evident, based on the line of questioning of all judges, that the law, which at this level is the Constitution, doesn't support forced commerce. Most of the judges have all made comments that the law's intent is to be helpful, in so many words, and to make a judgment made on the merits of "its helpful" would be Judicial Activism, but its actually implementation is not allowed by the enumerated powers of the Federal Government.

Click to expand...

If they vote the other way, will heads explode?

j-mac said:

No, you didn't, that is why I asked what I did, now do as I say son, and read, then answer....heh, heh...


j-mac

Click to expand...

I'm sorry j. But there is an answer there. It is clear we need to why before a better answer cna be given. Your answer didn't expalin it.

jet57 said:

Have you all heard the latest? Of course, justice Scalia doesn't want to read the whole bill; the other justices are having their clerks read the entire bill so that the justices know what they're talking about; but not Scalia: he doesn't think that ruling on the constutionality a law presented to the citizens of the United States should include a clear and knowledgeable understanding to effect the US Constitution; just the stuff that Scalia [/i]wants to look at[/i] . . .

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Won't Read Health Care Law

and the right keeps wronging

Click to expand...

Congress passed, and the president signed the bill, all without reading it. So what's your point?

Captain America said:

Anytime the courts rule against anything someone is for, they whine "judicial activism." Usually it's the rightwingers. Funny how you don't see them whining about the "judicial activism" now.

Click to expand...

If they rule in favor and following the constitution, which is the JOB of a supreme court justice, there is no activism.

Boo Radley said:

I'm sorry j. But there is an answer there. It is clear we need to why before a better answer cna be given. Your answer didn't expalin it.

Click to expand...

We need to.......What?

What do Certified Nursing Asst. have to do with this?

I am not an ex-palin....Are you?


hahahahahahaha!


j-mac

Boo Radley said:

If they vote the other way, will heads explode?

Click to expand...

If they vote the other way, upholding the law, then the opinion better be the most narrow opinion(i.e. health insurance market = the one and only special case ) they've ever written in their life or there will be a ****storm.

I can see the legislation rolling off the press in my mind( Buy GM Act, Buy Organic Act, Buy Local Act, etc, etc ). Sure, some of it would be protest like( The Arm America Act: Everyone must own a gun ), while others would be truly in the mold of "I know what's best for you".

Boo Radley said:

That is an option, but we will have to turn people away, even those with emergency conditions, and health over all in this country will suffer, as more will be without access. There are consequences for that as well.

Click to expand...

Or, it could just be that once governments butt out medical care will be priced like everything else. There will be luxury "Prius" plans for those who want to "drive" a status symbol. And there will be economy plans for the more budget conscious. Free markets respond well to competition. They do not respond well in monopoly conditions.

'Ya know, here is the way I see this -

1) If the individual mandate is struck down, then SCOTUS is going to have to either throw out the rest of it, or Congress is going to have to move fast. With the other provisions in place, insurance companies will either go bankrupt or leave the health insurance business, since the requirement that they take in pre-existing conditions will be a heavy financial burden that they won't be able to overcome. At the very least, insurance prices will skyrocket to the point where so many people will stop buying health insurance that many insurance companies will not see profit, and will stop issuing health policies.

2) If the individual mandate is struck down, people will still be seeking treatment at emergency rooms, which of course drives up the price of health care.

BUT

3) If the individual mandate is ruled not a tax, then it is clearly unconstitutional.

I would hate to be in SCOTUS' shoes right now. No matter how they rule, the decision is going to be extremely unpopular, and will further divide the nation. But bear in mind that they are going to be making their ruling with the Constitution in mind. If they do kill the individual mandate, then one of two things is going to happen. Either:

1) We will eventually be forced into a single payer system, much like Canada. We will pay a tax, and that will be ruled constitutional.

OR

2) Those who can't afford health insurance will continue to seek treatment in emergency rooms, thus driving up the cost of health care for everybody else.

Whether we want to admit it or not, options 1 and 2 are not that different. Option 1 will clearly call for a tax, and option 2 will be the exact same thing as a tax, as far as our wallets see it. We will pay it either way.

There is also option 3 - Hospitals turn away people seeking treatment at the door. That option would not last long, once enough bodies pile up in and around hospitals, and the result would be a greater push to, and the probable success of option 1 becoming the law.

Misterveritis said:

Or, it could just be that once governments butt out medical care will be priced like everything else. There will be luxury "Prius" plans for those who want to "drive" a status symbol. And there will be economy plans for the more budget conscious. Free markets respond well to competition. They do not respond well in monopoly conditions.

Click to expand...

It's not a free market as long as the paying is primarily third-party.

jet57 said:

Have you all heard the latest? Of course, justice Scalia doesn't want to read the whole bill; the other justices are having their clerks read the entire bill so that the justices know what they're talking about; but not Scalia: he doesn't think that ruling on the constutionality a law presented to the citizens of the United States should include a clear and knowledgeable understanding to effect the US Constitution; just the stuff that Scalia [/i]wants to look at[/i] . . .

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Won't Read Health Care Law

and the right keeps wronging

Click to expand...

Looked at your website. Now since out representatives didn't read the bill, and Pelosi said we'd have to read it to know what was in it, I assume she, main proponent of the bill hadn't read it either, I can't see why a member of the highest court in the land, Justice Scalia, would have to read 2700. Do you? Wouldn't the telling of the HC story be on the lawyers? Since they're the one's who brought it to the Supremes, yes.

AdamT said:

No, it isn't separate from health care because people who do not have health insurance have a substantial effect on the cost of everyone else's health insurance. Same reason that auto insurance is mandatory and why many states have mandatory no fault insurance.

Click to expand...

So? If 50 million people do not buy a new car but instead buy a used car then that affects everyone else's cost of buying a new car. Should we now force everyone to buy a new car in order to lower the cost of buying a new car?

Samhain said:

If they vote the other way, upholding the law, then the opinion better be the most narrow opinion(i.e. health insurance market = the one and only special case ) they've ever written in their life or there will be a ****storm.

Click to expand...

It would have to be narrow as the argument for retaining the law is based on the premise that the health care market is unlike any other.