• 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 Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

Only so far as we obey them. They dont have any actual enforcement power. So since they are willing to ignore the law, I guess we all should.

LOL. Good plan. Should work out for the "we" whoever that is. Just pick and choose what laws to follow and what laws to ignore. Can't see a problem with that....:shock: :lamo
 
Yes, it is that entitlement that you and other liberals are proud of. Doesn't matter to you as long as someone else pays for it. Congratulations on being so successful. You surely made your parents proud.

I bet it concerns them less than it concerns you. :lamo
 
Please tell me your kidding me?

If we are not a country of law, we are nothing!

evidently we aren't as words on a bill that are law mean nothing and it is solely up to whatever someone wishes them to be.
 
poor Scalia. he is 100% correct yet the other judges choose to simply ignore the constitution and vote against him. one day the shoe will be on the other foot, and when the liberals begin whining I will remind them of this moment.

unfortunately there is no more appeals. the SCOTUS again screwed the American people over.
we will have to wait till 2016 and hopefully a republican president use budget reconciliation to remove obamacare and put something else in it's place.
 
Its all good.....if you aint on Food stamps. Just sayin. :)

GOP posters like you should be demanding to see what your leading POTUS contenders will REPLACE SCOTUS-care with, along with the plans from GOP House and Senate members being introduced on the floors of those bodies .
 
Its all good.....if you aint on Food stamps. Just sayin. :)

I keep my food stamps next to my Obama phone. :2razz: :lamo
 
that is the one flaw in the constitution. there is no check and balance against the SCOTUS.
That's an interesting comment, because the Supreme Court did more-or-less seize it's own power (over Congress), when Justice Marshall established 'judicial review' early-on in the Court's (and country's) history.
 
It is certainly a new interpretation of the way constitutional rights are interpreted to work.

Since the GOP House refuses to REPLACE what they are trying to REPEAL, while just going to court, the third wing of the USSC has acted for them, as they chose them to do .
 
This is water under the bridge, but one person who was right all along in the ACA negotiations said the 59 was never really solid. Don't know if he was right, but what he understood was as long as there were only 59, Democrats wanted to sign on to the public option for political reasons, but that one or more would have been stripped off if it actually meant that part would pass. As I recall, Bayh was an especially weak vote, and his wife, surprise, made mid 6 figures serving on the BOD of a couple of insurers.... Coincidence I'm sure!

It never would have passed if 2 republican senators hadn't betrayed the people of their state or the people of America.
they did betray the people that voted for them. otherwise the bill never would have passed.

then Roberts makes one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in the world almost similar to the screw you deal that has us all in a blunder.
then he doubles down and does it again.

he is a wreck of a chief justice he has betrayed the constitution and his oath of office and should be removed.
the same for all the other members of the court that voted for this stupid bill.

they put their politics above the constitution. that is treason in my book.
 
It's funny - you post an article then make claims that are nowhere mentioned in what you cited.
I apologize, I sometimes forget that not everyone is as well read as me. I would have thought it was common sense given the amount of information available but that's a good call...

Obamacare Has a New Problem: It Won
Oregon Study Exposes Another ObamaCare Falsehood: Rather Than Reduce Unnecessary ER Use, Medicaid Increases It - Forbes

I predicate my statements on that Oregon study where Medicaid customers increased their use of ER's even after they were covered. I look at it this way: I went to Obamacare website and signed up for a mid-level plan with a low premium and high deductible because I had to. Now, I'm sick - do I go to a regular doctors office and have to pay my deductible and pay for my sickness or do I just go to the ER and say, "I don't have insurance. Treat me." :shrug: No brainer. ER's are open 24/7, will treat any malady for the poor (and must) so why not go there? It's not difficult to see why ER traffic increased and probably will continue to increase.
 
I won't delve into your closing statement, but I'm in FULL agreement with your opening paragraph.

You make a very practical argument. That being said, I don't see single-payer coming quickly or (definitely not) easily. Mrs. Clinton is a strong universal healthcare proponent, so there may be possibilities if she were to get into office, but I'm not sure if her allegiance to big money will allow it. A public-option would be a further push in the direction of single-payer, and might be more doable. In fact, a public-option may be the initial construct leading to expansion to full single-payer (I would just expand MediCare by lowering the age over time - no idea if that's politically feasible; I doubt it, and the ACA seems to be the national umbrella system now).

That's fair - I'd say if Hillary Clinton somehow becomes President, a huge mistake in my view, you can forget about any comprehensive change to the ACA. It will be left to collapse unto itself. The only chance for comprehensive reform will be through a Republican President, someone like Jeb Bush, who can move away from the mandates and push to have broadened coverage of those without insurance at the moment - this is what should have been done in the US before the ACA. It would be, in effect, a federally funded complete expansion of Medicaid to cover those without insurance for financial reasons. In effect, a self-insurance program.

That will, over time, move the nation towards a single payer system that is supported by the majority of people. And you're right, it wouldn't be quick and it won't be easy, but a Clinton Presidency sets it back a decade and perhaps the ACA collapses under it's own inefficient weight.
 
Just pick and choose what laws to follow and what laws to ignore. Can't see a problem with that....:shock: :lamo
Neither could John Roberts! :shock::lamo
 
So at the risk of thread derailment.....

My brother, hard core workin man, drives truck, does masonry, plumbing, framing and just about any other tough job that can be done with your hands. hasn't had insurance since he left the Marine Core 25 years ago. Under Obama he get's catastrophic insurance, it costs him like $110 a month and his deductibles are really, crazy high, but if he ever gets mouth cancer from chewing tobacco all these years, the $50,000-$100,000 dollars it would have cost him to have it treated is now paid for. He doesn't have to sell a lifetimes worth of tools (his livelihood) to pay for treatment....His out of pocket, $10K? I don't see how this isn't a steal?
 
Since the GOP House refuses to REPLACE what they are trying to REPEAL, while just going to court, the third wing of the USSC has acted for them, as they chose them to do .

Be it as that may. It does not make it any better.
 
Will Republicans flee to Canada now that the government has taken over healthcare? Will they be surprised by what they find when they get there? Will Republicans decry this act of judicial activism as vehemently as they did Bush v Gore?
 
That's fair - I'd say if Hillary Clinton somehow becomes President, a huge mistake in my view, you can forget about any comprehensive change to the ACA. It will be left to collapse unto itself. The only chance for comprehensive reform will be through a Republican President, someone like Jeb Bush, who can move away from the mandates and push to have broadened coverage of those without insurance at the moment - this is what should have been done in the US before the ACA. It would be, in effect, a federally funded complete expansion of Medicaid to cover those without insurance for financial reasons. In effect, a self-insurance program.

That will, over time, move the nation towards a single payer system that is supported by the majority of people. And you're right, it wouldn't be quick and it won't be easy, but a Clinton Presidency sets it back a decade and perhaps the ACA collapses under it's own inefficient weight.

I am afraid that is true. I am also afraid it will take a long time, while successive governments will try to cover over the inadequacies by shoveling money into it.
 
Yeah I agree.. those 30,000 pages ( that makes 0bamacare so wonderful ) full of crap that nobody understands should not be touched.

I read most of it and it wasn't that hard to understand.
 
that is the one flaw in the constitution. there is no check and balance against the SCOTUS.

I disagree. The Constitution contains an amending process to change constitutional law. The legislative process can also be used to modify or repeal laws. Constitutional processes exist. Whether given outcomes are easy to achieve, especially amending the constitution, are entirely different matters.
 
As usual you are too kind.

An "asinine and insulting backward step" is how we see it here.

The change to UHC does not come easily, it didn't happen here overnight. But we learned there is no middle, no in between, it is an all or nothing venture. In my severest criticisms of Obama, this is the most severe. He had an opportunity to change opinion, by unifying, and deliberately squandered it.

In Canada we voted some years ago for who was our best Canadian. It wasn't Gretski, not Pierre Trudeau, not Les Voyaguers who opened all of North America, but one guy, a leader of a third ranked party who had implemented UHC in his province when he was premier. Tommy Douglas was never prime minister, in fact never even made her majesty's loyal opposition, the theoretical government in waiting. He was the leader of the third ranked party who convinced a nation of the value of universal health care. In fact, he wasn't even part leader when UHC came into being.

Obama had that opportunity, but rather than 'sell' a proven idea, convince America of the economic benefits [30-40% less lost time at work to start] and to bring the country together.

Instead he chose not to work with even the most moderate Republicans, and called them "enemies", and then proceeded to ram through the most complex piece of legislation in the history of the United States [that document and its attachments are more than the entire Canada Health Act and its attchments dating back to 1966].

So now, we have a deeper divide, those who may have supported UHC before lost their plans when no one was supposed to, it he and his posse alienated intelligent lawmakers who may have come on board and helped sell the idea.

My first post after the passing of Obamacare was something like this "the possibility of an affordable and sustainable universal health care plan has been set back at least two decades." I now say five decades.

And you now stand alone in the world among industrialized countries with the single worst idea on the planet.

Sorry but I just don't buy a word of that. Liberals call it the Green Lantern Theory of the presidency, and it refers to the notion that the POTUS has these immense powers of persuasion that if only he'd use them could convince, in this case, right wing republicans (who met and agreed to fight Obama on EVERYTHING before he was inaugurated) would have gone along with socialized medicine in the U.S.

You just have to ignore all the political realities in the U.S. circa 2009 to believe it. The Democratic author of the bill, Baucus, was a puppet of the insurers and hired a f'ing insurance company VP to write the law. The idea that a single payer system killing off insurers makes it into a bill that even gets a serious hearing is wishful thinking at its finest, and the idea that a single payer system that would eliminate the market for some of the U.S. largest companies could get 60 votes is just absurd.
 
that is the one flaw in the constitution. there is no check and balance against the SCOTUS.
Incorrect.

1) Congress can pass another law; e.g. there is absolutely no legal reason it can pass a law that explicitly suspends subsidies for states that don't run their own exchanges, or overturns the ACA. If you've got the votes, of course.

2) Justices can be impeached.

3) The Constitution can be modified, either via amendment or a Convention.

There are numerous other flaws in the US Constitution, but this is not the thread to review those problems. Anyway...


the only thing we can hope now is that in 2016 we get a republican president
hahahaha

Good luck with that.

The opponents of the law will also need a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, which is highly unlikely. Then, they'll need to fight the health care industry, most of which has already adapted to the new system at no small expense. Then, someone has to explain why the people who lambasted the ACA for pushing people off their old plans and onto new plans, are going to completely take away health insurance from about 18 million people. These are the same politicians who have not offered a real replacement, despite this whole process starting in 2010.

Let's not forget that merely referring to it as "Obamacare" drives down poll numbers; that calling it the ACA in a poll boost support by several points -- and that many of the provisions are, in fact, highly popular. E.g. in 2014:

- Extension of dependent coverage: 80% approval
- Close Medicare donut hole: 79%
- Subsidies: 77%
- Eliminate copays for preventative care: 77%
- Medicaid expansion: 74%
- Guaranteed issue: 70%
- Medical loss ratio: 62%
- Increase Medicare payroll tax on upper income: 56%
- Individual mandate/penalty: 35%

(And as usual, we see how the American public wants benefits, but doesn't want to pay for it. Big shock.)

Sorry dude, but this war's pretty much over.
 
evidently we aren't as words on a bill that are law mean nothing and it is solely up to whatever someone wishes them to be.
No, it's not what 'someone' thinks those words mean - it's what a 'Justice' thinks they mean.

Like it or not, any law (as the constitution) means only what a given judge on a given day in a given instance, thinks it means.

It's that simple.

If Congress disagrees, they need to rewrite the legislation to more explicitly express their desires.

So there's a mechanism in place to override this, and if the will of the American people agrees with your position, Congress & the president will react accordingly (through political force and the citizen's power of their vote).
 
It never would have passed if 2 republican senators hadn't betrayed the people of their state or the people of America.
they did betray the people that voted for them. otherwise the bill never would have passed.

then Roberts makes one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in the world almost similar to the screw you deal that has us all in a blunder.
then he doubles down and does it again.

he is a wreck of a chief justice he has betrayed the constitution and his oath of office and should be removed.
the same for all the other members of the court that voted for this stupid bill.

they put their politics above the constitution. that is treason in my book.

OK, issued decision you disagree with so obviously that must mean he's a traitor. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom