• 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!

SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758, 1205]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Navy Pride said:
I would not hold my breath on that........You gotta pay for all those 40,000,000 uninsured my left wing friend...
Click to expand...

OK, let's have some fun.

By denying those 40,000,000 insurance, you want them to struggle/suffer [struffle] and/or die?

You don't need to be so sympathetical, NP.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

cpwill said:
Hazlnut was asserting that pro-mandate was the conservative position. not the Constitutional one. the Court may have held the tax as Constitutional, that doesn't make it the "conservative" position.
Click to expand...

It *was* the conservative position. Then suddenly, it became not just an ill-considered policy that conservatives had changed their mind about...but an unconstitutional, tyrannical, socialist policy. And this about-face all took place over the span of a few months which happened to coincide with the Democrats putting an individual mandate in the ACA. Imagine that! I'm sure it was just a coincidence, even though Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Robert Bennett, and Mitt Romney were all pushing an individual mandate as late as summer 2009.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Boo Radley said:
That would be true if we were comparing political systems. We're not. The discussion was simply about healthcare quality. I can admire and like the way OJ played football, and not like him as a person.
Click to expand...

Ok, make a point for point comparison between Cuba's healthcare system and ours.

Simply being "free" doesn't win. I have a buddy that thinks that if get's stoned and spits on your ailment, that you will be healed. And he doesn't charge.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Ya know, it's funny ... that's the exact same thing righties said to me years ago when I asked, "where are the WMD?"

... I'm still waiting for that too.
Click to expand...


Well glad to inform you the wait on your taxes going up will be a lot sooner.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Kandahar said:
It *was* the conservative position. Then suddenly, it became not just an ill-considered policy that conservatives had changed their mind about...but an unconstitutional, tyrannical, socialist policy. And this about-face all took place over the span of a few months which happened to coincide with the Democrats putting an individual mandate in the ACA. Imagine that! I'm sure it was just a coincidence, even though Charles Grassley, Orrin Hatch, Robert Bennett, and Mitt Romney were all pushing an individual mandate as late as summer 2009.
Click to expand...

aye.. and now liberals love the conservative mandate...and the corporations it feeds.

politics is funny business... it never fails to entertain me.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

mac said:
April 14th....
Click to expand...
Can you post a link which confirms that date?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

AdamT said:
Again with the biggest tax to hit the middle class! Where do you guys get this stuff? :lol:
Click to expand...

Straight form Rush Limbaugh. He was saying this same thing today. I imagine most of the right-wing nuts here live and die on the words of people like Limbaugh.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

KY Jelly, anyone?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Thrilla said:
aye.. and now liberals love the conservative mandate...and the corporations it feeds.
Click to expand...

Actually they don't. Most liberals would still prefer single-payer or a public option. They settled for an individual mandate, ironically, as an olive branch to conservatives.

politics is funny business... it never fails to entertain me.
Click to expand...

The difference, of course, is that liberals were willing to tolerate the individual mandate in order to try to achieve a political compromise...whereas conservatives were willing to abandon the individual mandate in order to AVOID compromise.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Kandahar said:
Actually they don't. Most liberals would still prefer single-payer or a public option. They settled for an individual mandate, ironically, as an olive branch to conservatives.



The difference, of course, is that liberals were willing to tolerate the individual mandate in order to try to achieve a political compromise...whereas conservatives were willing to abandon the individual mandate in order to AVOID compromise.
Click to expand...
...which is why we have 130+ pages of liberals gloating over their "victory"....
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Texmex said:
Straight form Rush Limbaugh. He was saying this same thing today. I imagine most of the right-wing nuts here live and die on the words of people like Limbaugh.
Click to expand...

I'll bet he went nuts today...
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Billy the Kid said:
Well glad to inform you the wait on your taxes going up will be a lot sooner.
Click to expand...
Uh-huh ... sure. :roll:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Thrilla said:
...which is why we have 130+ pages of liberals gloating over their "victory"....
Click to expand...

Yes. Because the Affordable Care Act is a major improvement over the status quo. The fact that it isn't as good as it could have been with a public option instead of an individual mandate does not negate this fact.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Has anybody considered that the Act is over 2100 pages long, which most Congressional members admit that they haven't read! They don't know what is says. Therefore they can't really put together a very effective auspice to implement and enforce the law.

Is it really healthy to pass laws and not know what the hell they say?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

So. Without even reading this conversation, I'm guessing it's gone something like the following:

-Liberals come in and triumph that sanity, logic, and common sense have prevailed for once.
-Conservatives come in and say that Big Government has yet again defended Big Government.
-Ensuing constitutional debate breaks out.
-Liberals ask conservatives if they are okay with millions being uninsured.
-Conservatives dodge the question and claim that the Affordable Care Act, which they affectionately refer to as "Obamacare," will destroy America as we know it.
-Ensuing economics debate breaks out.
-Liberals point out that the Affordable Care Act is very similar to the health care plan that Romney signed into law.
-Conservatives counter that with their explanations.
-Things get heated. Real heated. (As evidenced by the FIVE, count 'em, FIVE thread warnings.)

In no particular order, of course.

AmIDoingItRite?
 
I'm sure this will get lost amongst the thousands of post in this thread, but here's something about the ruling I don't think people have yet to catch on to.

Where the Anti-Injunction Act applies, if you listened to oral arguments you'd know that the SC asked who would be responsible for enforcing the law should an individual bring suit against the PPACA once he has to pay the tax penalty. The Justices all argued that such a matter really should be handled by the tax courts, but felt strongly that such suits would fall on the SC. None wanted to take on such litigation fearing that a constant stream of such suits would only bog down the SC. Justice Robert's ruling, therefore, accomplished three things:

1) It ensured that the SC did not appear partisan. Consider for a moment how deep "one-party rule" runs within the Republican party - state legislatures, state Governors, the House of Rep and a slight under representation in the Senate and the presumptive Conservative SC. If you view this as an unprecedented power grab by a single party and then recall how obstructionist the Republican party has been these last 3 years, Justice Roberts essentially saved his party from a massive public outcry.

2) Removed the argument that the Liberals would continue to lean on the commerce clause to change or implement laws through the SC as they saw fit. Considering that no opinion favored the individual mandate through the prism of the commerce clause, Justice Robert rendered this argument null and void.

3) Removed any chance of a suit coming before the SC by individuals making the claim that they have been harmed by paying the tax penalty from the health care law. And if such a suit does find its way into the federal judicial system, it will be stopped and adjudicated in fededal tax court, not the Supreme Court.

Bottom Line: Justice Roberts "found" a get-out-of-legalism free card for his party. You may hate his ruling and disagree with his opinion, but I'm convinced that high powered Conservatives are privately giving him high-5's.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Uh-huh ... sure. :roll:
Click to expand...

if there are no tax increases.. how is the government going to pay for it?...
it's a couple of hundred billion a year in increased costs.... they gotta pay for it somehow.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

I can't read 132 pages. Has anybody posted the interview obama did where he swore up down and sideways this mandate was not a tax?
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: ...during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?
OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here - here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average - our families - in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that.
That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's ...
STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. That's not true, George. The - for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy ...
OBAMA: No, but - but, George, you - you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase. Any ...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Here's the ...
OBAMA: What - what - if I - if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that's not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don't want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then ...
STEPHANOPOULOS: I - I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Tax - "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what ...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but ...
OBAMA: ... what you're saying is ...
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but ...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it's a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.


Read more: Obama on whether individual mandate is a tax: 'It is absolutely not' | Fox News
What the Hell, I will post it anyway.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Phys251 said:
So. Without even reading this conversation, I'm guessing it's gone something like the following:

-Liberals come in and triumph that sanity, logic, and common sense have prevailed for once.
-Conservatives come in and say that Big Government has yet again defended Big Government.
-Ensuing constitutional debate breaks out.
-Liberals ask conservatives if they are okay with millions being uninsured.
-Conservatives dodge the question and claim that the Affordable Care Act, which they affectionately refer to as "Obamacare," will destroy America as we know it.
-Ensuing economics debate breaks out.
-Liberals point out that the Affordable Care Act is very similar to the health care plan that Romney signed into law.
-Conservatives counter that with their explanations.
-Things get heated. Real heated. (As evidenced by the FIVE, count 'em, FIVE thread warnings.)

In no particular order, of course.

AmIDoingItRite?
Click to expand...

LOL...You're about right.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

mac said:
Internal Revenue Service
Click to expand...

Imagine my surprise to see there's nothing there which confirms your claim ...


l.jpg
 
Objective Voice said:
I'm sure this will get lost amongst the thousands of post in this thread, but here's something about the ruling I don't think people have yet to catch on to.

Where the Anti-Injunction Act applies, if you listened to oral arguments you'd know that the SC asked who would be responsible for enforcing the law should an individual bring suit against the PPACA once he has to pay the tax penalty. The Justices all argued that such a matter really should be handled by the tax courts, but felt strongly that such suits would fall on the SC. None wanted to take on such litigation fearing that a constant stream of such suits would only bog down the SC. Justice Robert's ruling, therefore, accomplished three things:

1) It ensured that the SC did not appear partisan. Consider for a moment how deep "one-party rule" runs within the Republican party - state legislatures, state Governors, the House of Rep and a slight under representation in the Senate and the presumptive Conservative SC. If you view this as an unprecedented power grab by a single party and then recall how obstructionist the Republican party has been these last 3 years, Justice Roberts essentially saved his party from a massive public outcry.

2) Removed the argument that the Liberals would continue to lean on the commerce clause to change or implement laws through the SC as they saw fit. Considering that no opinion favored the individual mandate through the prism of the commerce clause, Justice Robert rendered this argument null and void.

3) Removed any chance of a suit coming before the SC by individuals making the claim that they have been harmed by paying the tax penalty from the health care law. And if such a suit does find its way into the federal judicial system, it will be stopped and adjudicated in fededal tax court, not the Supreme Court.

Bottom Line: Justice Roberts "found" a get-out-of-legalism free card for his party. You may hate his ruling and disagree with his opinion, but I'm convinced that high powered Conservatives are privately giving him high-5's.
Click to expand...

i've seen a few arguments in my internet travels that kinda said the same thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom