• 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-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The BIG difference with a fine, is that you must DO SOMETHING to warrant the fine, and can usually appeal it in court. ;-)

Or not do something, like not have insurance. ;)

As for appeal, you can still go to court.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Actually, the law was NOT upheld in it's entirety. Yes, Roberts joined with the Liberal faction, but in striking down the Commerce Clause argument, and calling it a tax, he is opening the door to undoing a lot of FDR's agenda, much of which was based on the Commerce Clause. In the long run, this trend will be a defeat for the Liberals.

That seems like quite a stretch, and a bit of wishful thinking from someone who disliked the ruling. Is it possible it will be seen as a long-term defeat for liberals? I suppose, but it's hardly likely. Even if Roberts sides with the conservatives on every case for the next 20 years, he'll be remembered for this single decision. In any case, I can't envision any piece of legislation that's likely to pass in the next 20 years that's more important than the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act...and after that I'll take my chances with a new Supreme Court.

I think it's worth noting that Roberts also sided with the liberals on the Stolen Valor case, and the Arizona immigration case. Perhaps he simply isn't the hardcore conservative that many people feared/hoped he was, and is more in the Anthony Kennedy mold.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Not even close. The commerce clause issue was limited to this unique case, or other attempts to "create commerce" and then regulate it under the commerce clause. That doesn't implicate existing commerce clause precedent at all.

Unfortunately, you are correct.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Well, from my perspective, the values you are espousing just aren't the values of a good person.
Why?
I am more concerned with the nation as a whole instead of an individual who is supposed to take care of their self.

Secondly, I find that while you profess good intent, the end results are not good for the whole, but evil.
And a person of the type we are speaking, wants it for their own good and is therefore selfish and greedy and without a care of who has to pay for it. They fit your stated "They are the values of a selfish, greedy, evil person.".

They are the values of a selfish, greedy, evil person. Somebody who only can understand why he should help somebody else in terms of how it helps him.
Wait a minute now. I never said I wouldn't help others. That is what you are overlooking in your rush to judge another.
But being forced to do so is wrong. No matter how you look at it, forcing it is wrong.


So, just off the top, we have a fundamental disagreement that I don't think debate can really rectify that.
Of course. Which is why I am speaking my opinion to that which you espouse.
Because what you espouse is harmful to the nation.


But, even within your ultra limited moral system where you only care about yourself, you are still wrong. Investing in poverty amelioration is one of the highest return investments there is. We are radically underinvesting in it at huge cost to our society.
Beside you being wrong about only caring for myself...
:naughty
If they can't provide for their own, or survive off the kindness of others, they are a burden and the nation does not need them.
Eliminating the teat suckers before they are a burden would be a higher return and far more beneficial to the nation



Countries that invest more of their GDP in poverty amelioration (which is almost the entire rest of the first world) see huge returns. Poverty has practically been eliminated in most of the first world for decades. The problems we're still struggling with in regards to poverty- the economic drain, the crime, all that- are radically more manageable in the rest of the first world. We're making a huge mistake just letting a problem that is relatively easy to solve fester. We treat the symptoms with a huge prison system and whatnot when it is way, way, cheaper, and in fact much more economically advantageous, to just solve the problem itself.
Ah yes. The everybody should suffer equally, bs.
And that is what it is.

The expenditures are coming back to haunt those nations. It is not sustainable with anything near the quality of care that is received in our current system.

But as I see you would rather burden our future generations. Not only with a piss poor health care system that will cost far to much for what is provided, but one that allows the unproductive and to survive and reproduce.
Yep. That is a real winner there.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Living on about $900/month does not allow me to pay insurance, so I do what I can to avoid needing medical care, when my number is up, then that is it for me. If I had major assets to protect or others depending on my income then insurance would be a wise expense, I had it earlier in life through my job(s), as things are, it is not practical to try to live on less than $300/month rent, sharing an old 2BR singlewide mobile home is good enough for me. If Obama thinks I need to pay a fine for that "crime", then so be it. I hope this stupid PPACA law is gone by 2014, if not, I may just "retire" (at least from IRS view).

You should get an HDHP. You will still be vulnerable to the mandate, and teamosil will still call you a freeloader (even though he can't explain why), but at least you wont impoverish yourself incase of emergency.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Not even close. The commerce clause issue was limited to this unique case, or other attempts to "create commerce" and then regulate it under the commerce clause. That doesn't implicate existing commerce clause precedent at all.

Roberts has basically denied liberals Wickard VS Filborn for every potential new entitlement plan they can dream up in the future.

Good luck ever scamming the American Public like you did with Obamacare ever again
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The transfer of $500 billion from the Medicare program serving seniors to Obamacare should become a major issue.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Roberts has basically denied liberals Wickard VS Filborn for every potential new entitlement plan they can dream up in the future.

Good luck ever scamming the American Public like you did with Obamacare ever again

That would be untrue. Roberts opinion was that the government could not use the commerce clause to force commerce, which does not invalidate Wickard V Filborn.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

That would be untrue. Roberts opinion was that the government could not use the commerce clause to force commerce, which does not invalidate Wickard V Filborn.

Too bad. Wickard was another of those New Deal SCOTUS decisions that really ought to be overturned. Personal work for personal use affects interstate commerce, so it can be regulated? WTF? Unfortunately it is activity, whereas Robert's decision was about inactivity.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Kiddo, seriously. You know why your claim is wrong. You must. I've explained it like 10 times in 10 different ways. Just pretending you don't get it is no way to win a debate.


I realize you must have either gotten the Dems Talking Points feed or you don't know a duck when you see it. As to winning the debate - I've won because I've faced the fact that this is a TAX. You want one more sip of the Kool Aide so's as you can swallow the crap you've been fed by the Dems. All I gotta say is drink up Kiddo, the election is just around the corner.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Obama's lawyers argued it was a tax

Supreme Court said it was a tax

It's a tax


This post needs to be repeated. Short and to the point.

It's a TAX. So how about taking the lipstick off the pig and stop calling it a "penalty".
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

This post needs to be repeated. Short and to the point.

It's a TAX. So how about taking the lipstick off the pig and stop calling it a "penalty".

It's only a tax if you fail to comply with the law. In other words, it's a tax penalty. Why do you even try to deny what's perfectly obvious?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

It's only a tax if you fail to comply with the law. In other words, it's a tax penalty. Why do you even try to deny what's perfectly obvious?


It's a TAX. The Justice Department argued it was a TAX. The Supreme Court Justices bought the argument and called it a TAX.

Now the Dems are trying to cover this pile and call it a penalty.

A TAX by anyother name is still a TAX.

The Dems better get used to the fact that this is a TAX because this issue has real long legs and isn't gonna play will in Peoria come election time. :lamo
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

It's a TAX. The Justice Department argued it was a TAX. The Supreme Court Justices bought the argument and called it a TAX.

Now the Dems are trying to cover this pile and call it a penalty.

A TAX by anyother name is still a TAX.

The Dems better get used to the fact that this is a TAX because this issue has real long legs and isn't gonna play will in Peoria come election time. :lamo

Long legs? That is hilarious. It's a 100 % avoidable tax. Almost no one is going to be paying the tax. What do you call something that doesn't effect any one? A nonissue.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Long legs? That is hilarious. It's a 100 % avoidable tax. Almost no one is going to be paying the tax. What do you call something that doesn't effect any one? A nonissue.


Ya know what? I'd love to believe this was true, but you can't "insure" 30-40+ million more people without someone picking up the tab. And history has proved it falls on the middle class to pay the bills.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Ya know what? I'd love to believe this was true, but you can't "insure" 30-40+ million more people without someone picking up the tab. And history has proved it falls on the middle class to pay the bills.

You mean the bill that all sorts of subsidies will be helping to pay? This stuff has been refuted repeatedly in this very thread. Repeating failed arguments won't make them true.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Long legs? That is hilarious. It's a 100 % avoidable tax. Almost no one is going to be paying the tax. What do you call something that doesn't effect any one? A nonissue.

Why wouldn't people pay the "tax" that is way cheaper than the otherwise required insurance?

Also, I agree that this isn't a tax. It's an unconstitutional pile of ****.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

You mean the bill that all sorts of subsidies will be helping to pay? This stuff has been refuted repeatedly in this very thread. Repeating failed arguments won't make them true.


You are so right. "Repeating failed arguments" won't make this other than what the JD argued and the Supreme Court ruled. It's a TAX.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Why wouldn't people pay the "tax" that is way cheaper than the otherwise required insurance?

Also, I agree that this isn't a tax. It's an unconstitutional pile of ****.

1. If you buy insurance you get insurance. If you pay a fine you still have to pay for medical expenses;
2. Freeloading is unethical.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Why wouldn't people pay the "tax" that is way cheaper than the otherwise required insurance?

Also, I agree that this isn't a tax. It's an unconstitutional pile of ****.

Because most people get their insurance through employment. Many more will get insurance free from Medicaid. Insurance has value.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

You are so right. "Repeating failed arguments" won't make this other than what the JD argued and the Supreme Court ruled. It's a TAX.

I did not say it was not a tax. Why build that straw man instead of arguing against what I actually said.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Why do we support the inclusion of a middle man in the realm of healthcare? There should be no insurance to take profits. Nationalize Medicare.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I did not say it was not a tax. Why build that straw man instead of arguing against what I actually said.



Because every talking head on TV is trying to convince the public/taxpayer it's not a TAX. It's all in the "wordsmithing". And that is my big concern.

I don't care how this TAX is dressed up or how many talking point papers are issued to try and fool the general public, - it's a TAX. And the public was told, by the Obama WH, this wasn't going to be a TAX.

Now we are all sitting here waiting for the "other shoe" to drop. Obama lied, congress validated that lie, and as usually the taxpayer will foot the bill in the long run.

It's now a wait-and-see game.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Because every talking head on TV is trying to convince the public/taxpayer it's not a TAX. It's all in the "wordsmithing". And that is my big concern.

I don't care how this TAX is dressed up or how many talking point papers are issued to try and fool the general public, - it's a TAX. And the public was told, by the Obama WH, this wasn't going to be a TAX.

Now we are all sitting here waiting for the "other shoe" to drop. Obama lied, congress validated that lie, and as usually the taxpayer will foot the bill in the long run.

It's now a wait-and-see game.

And now you are even further from addressing the point I made. Defending your point by evading from arguments made against it is not a good debate tactic. Neither is silly hyperbole and exaggeration.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Because every talking head on TV is trying to convince the public/taxpayer it's not a TAX. It's all in the "wordsmithing". And that is my big concern.

I don't care how this TAX is dressed up or how many talking point papers are issued to try and fool the general public, - it's a TAX. And the public was told, by the Obama WH, this wasn't going to be a TAX.

Now we are all sitting here waiting for the "other shoe" to drop. Obama lied, congress validated that lie, and as usually the taxpayer will foot the bill in the long run.

It's now a wait-and-see game.

The bottom line is that, whatever you want to call it, the way it actually works has been known since 2009 and nothing has changed in that regard.
 
Back
Top Bottom