• 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!

Obama Health-Care Reform Act Ruled Unconstitutional(edited)

Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

Although I agree the government can't force anyone to purchase health insurance, this is one of the worst analogies I've probably ever seen on DP, and that's coming from someone who has been accused several times of giving bad analogies.

the legal authority remains the same in both cases. if you can do one, you can do the other. See Kandahar's (honest, i have to give him) response.


Kandahar:

 
Last edited:
Funny that it is the Republican idea that forces people to buy insurance is the biggest problem with the law.
Ah. So can you expound on this please?
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

That's because you're comparing the level of pre-reform government spending with the level of post-reform government spending. I'm talking about OVERALL health care spending. That's a better measure of the economic viability of the system, because even though your taxes would go up under a single-payer system or a public option, your own personal health care premiums would decline.

The US spends 16% of its GDP on health care expenditures (including both public and private spending). The next-highest countries spend only 11%, and the OECD average is a mere 8%. Despite this, we don't seem to have any unambiguous advantage in the quality of our health care. That's why it strains credibility to claim that emulating some of the features of other countries' health care systems would increase our costs.

You can't put millions more on and not have doctors to treat them. The costs will go up and the quality will go down
 
You have such great belief that the Federal Govt. can lower costs and increase quality and quantity. Upon what do you base that belief? Interesting that single payer is being dismantled in Europe and such failure in reducing costs in MA. Interesting that you and the rest of the Obama supporters ignore that reality.


Yeah...you stick with the Great Republican idea to require everyone to buy insurance.....That's the dumbest part of the whole program.
 
Yeah...you stick with the Great Republican idea to require everyone to buy insurance.....That's the dumbest part of the whole program.

The Republicans allow for personal choice something that liberals only seem to support when it comes to murdering a baby. Right now there are millions and millions of people who can afford insurance but CHOOSE not to participate. What gives the govt. the right to force someone to purchase insurance? Republicans allow people to have that choice. You continue to be on the wrong side of just about every issue.
 
more for the casual constitutionalists to chomp on:

Obamacare supporters will say the judicial score is tied: Two federal courts have upheld Obamacare, and two have declared part of it constitutional. But two against two among federal district courts is not a tie. District judges, whether state or federal, are risk-averse when interpreting the law. District judges preside over trial courts. They normally apply established law to the facts before them. Deciding questions of law is primarily the work of appellate courts.

Federal district judges, in particular, do not like being reversed by appellate judges. Frequent reversals are not good for one's ego or the reputation. Federal district judges naturally know, without consulting statistics, that very few federal statutes are declared unconstitutional. So given the probabilities, it's much safer and easier for a lone federal district judge to declare federal statutes constitutional. Just leave it to the panel of three appellate judges to consider more carefully whether a statute is unconstitutional. That's what appellate judges are paid to do.

Because of this, the two decisions against Obamacare are much more significant than the two that upheld the legislation. For a judge to declare a federal statute unconstitutional, his or her opinion better be extremely well reasoned within existing case law. Predictably, many who disagree with the result in controversial cases will charge that the decision is a political one. Therefore, judicial opinions in highly scrutinized cases must necessarily go to great lengths to persuade readers that the decision is based on established constitutional principles. That usually requires quite a lengthy written opinion.

Monday's decision was long (78 pages) and very carefully reasoned. It needed to be, given its widespread consequences. Usually, a decision against a federal statute by a district court will have an immediate effect only within the particular federal district. In this case, however, 26 states, some individuals and the National Federation of Independent Business were plaintiffs. All get the benefit of the declaratory judgment, even without an injunction. That means that until an appellate court decides otherwise, Obamacare is not applicable in 26 states, nor apparently to members of the NFIB in other states.

Opinion: Obamacare Is in Critical Condition With the Courts
 
meanwhile, politics, as predicted, proceeds

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) introduced legislation Tuesday that would allow states to “opt out” of the law’s requirement that individuals have to buy insurance, that large companies have to provide insurance and that states need to expand their Medicaid program.

Graham said his goal in introducing the legislation is to take down the entire health reform law. “If you take half the states out of the individual mandate, this [health reform] bill falls,” he said. “Quite frankly, that’s the goal.” He suggested that he would try to force a vote on the bill every time they “vote on naming a post office.”

Barrasso and Graham said the new legislation would force the health debate from Washington to the state level, where some governors or state leaders are nervous about the expensive expansion of the Medicaid program .

“Instead of requiring states to follow Obamacare’s one-size-fits-all approach to health care policy, our bill allows states to decide what fits best for their citizens,” Barrasso said.

Senate GOP aims for piecemeal health care reform repeal - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com

the party in power is prodigiously pinched

seeya at the polls, progressives
 
Make 'em vote, Harry! We gotta get you and your punks on record so we can destroy you in 2012......again.
 
The Republicans allow for personal choice something that liberals only seem to support when it comes to murdering a baby. Right now there are millions and millions of people who can afford insurance but CHOOSE not to participate. What gives the govt. the right to force someone to purchase insurance? Republicans allow people to have that choice. You continue to be on the wrong side of just about every issue.
LOL.....what do you know about the plan? It was the Republican idea to require people to buy insurance......It was a Republican idea that was offered as a compromise to the public option. It was a bad Republican idea used to try to appease Republicans....so no...dude....I think it is you that is seemingly on the wrong side of pretty much every issue.
 
Last edited:
LOL.....what do you know about the plan? It was the Republican idea to require people to buy insurance......It was a Republican idea that was offered as a compromise to the public option. It was a bad Republican idea used to try to appease Republicans....so no...dude....I think it is you that is seemingly on the wrong side of pretty much every issue.

What Republicans voted for the healthcare plan?
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

Yes, it will be appealed. Obama would be stupid not to appeal it. Obama is very smart politically. And he surrounds himself with other smart people who know the law and the Constitution just as much, or more, as he does. The SCOTUS will uphold the law.

Well, I was referring to his political prowes, actually. If he were "smart", he'd accept defeat, and win off of it. He could be the bigger man, when the country is looking for "BIG PEOPLE" (We used to call them leaders) to stand up, and look for consensus. He could easily back away from this, and use it as a spring board to compromise. He may end up having to compromise anyway, but it makes better political sense to lead the way, rather than be clearly forced.

Tim-
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

Well, I was referring to his political prowes, actually. If he were "smart", he'd accept defeat, and win off of it. He could be the bigger man, when the country is looking for "BIG PEOPLE" (We used to call them leaders) to stand up, and look for consensus. He could easily back away from this, and use it as a spring board to compromise. He may end up having to compromise anyway, but it makes better political sense to lead the way, rather than be clearly forced.

Tim-

In a sense, I agree with you. From my leftist viewpoint, he could use this as an opportunity to seek a public option - which was/is supported by a majority of Americans. But I still believe that it's wiser to appeal and let the Supreme Court decide. I'm no expert on these matters, but I seriously doubt that the Supreme Court will strike down the whole law. If anything, they'll rule against the mandate. If the mandate is struck down, then Obama can pursue other, perhaps better, options.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

Yes, those children with preexisting conditions and cancer patients who've been dropped from their health care will be thrilled.

Lol like they were going to be treated by ObamaCare :lol:
 
Yeah...you stick with the Great Republican idea to require everyone to buy insurance.....That's the dumbest part of the whole program.

Try this link about whose idea it was, Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate : NPR

A commitee hardly constitutes The Great Republican Idea,

Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s — when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system — "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "


In case you were wondering where your talking point came from.
 
Yeah...you stick with the Great Republican idea to require everyone to buy insurance.....That's the dumbest part of the whole program.

Yeah see, I think I and others have questioned your claim that the mandate was a "Republican idea", but you're not coming back to back that up. So I'm going to chalk that up to a bald faced steaming pile of bupkus.
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

Johnny Centrist [quote said:
Yes, those children with preexisting conditions and cancer patients who've been dropped from their health care will be thrilled.

Lol like they were going to be treated by ObamaCare :lol:

:lol: You don't understand what the so-called Obamacare is, do you? It does exactly what Johnny Centrist said, and a lot more. So, now that you know that the new HC law will cover those people, do you think they'd be happy if they had that coverage taken away from them?
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

get real

Democratic senator: Public health insurance option dead – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

there were SIXTY dem senators in august, 2009

obama's sotu, january, 2011: let's not refight the fights of the last 2 years

even the obtuse knows a loser when it's so frontally in his face

I don't agree that the public option is dead. I don't care who says it is. But I do agree that we shouldn't rehash the fights of the last two years. The problem is Republicans disagree with you. They said they'd focus on jobs, but so far, they have only focused on repealing HC reform. I say leave it in place and let's improve upon it. But if Republicans want to continue the fight, I expect Democrats to defend this legislation with their political careers. And if they have a window for it, put the public option back in. It's still supported by a majority of Americans.
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

I don't agree that the public option is dead. I don't care who says it is. But I do agree that we shouldn't rehash the fights of the last two years. The problem is Republicans disagree with you. They said they'd focus on jobs, but so far, they have only focused on repealing HC reform. I say leave it in place and let's improve upon it. But if Republicans want to continue the fight, I expect Democrats to defend this legislation with their political careers. And if they have a window for it, put the public option back in. It's still supported by a majority of Americans.

HC mandates affect what business pays for their employees thus affects jobs.

Why the passion for a public option? Where in the world has that lowered healthcare costs?
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

Johnny Centrist :lol: You don't understand what the so-called Obamacare is said:
You don't understand the argument is do you. The argument is not about helping those in need. It's about Congress over stepping there power as defined in the Constitution ( You know that document that is the Supreme Law of the Land).
 
Yeah see, I think I and others have questioned your claim that the mandate was a "Republican idea", but you're not coming back to back that up. So I'm going to chalk that up to a bald faced steaming pile of bupkus.

You and others can question that claim all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true. I don't understand how you couldn't know that at this point. It's common knowledge to those who have been paying attention to this issue.

Try these on for size. The first one is from Fox News, so you can't accuse me of using a biased source.

Republicans were for President Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.
The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.
Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the Republican presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest Republican senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed

Read more: Republicans Hatched Idea for Obama's Health Insurance Mandate - FoxNews.com


"The truth is this is a Republican idea," said Linda Quick, president of the South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association. She said she first heard the concept of the "individual mandate" in a Miami speech in the early 1990s by Sen. John McCain, a conservative Republican from Arizona, to counter the "Hillarycare" the Clintons were proposing.

McCain did not embrace the concept during his 2008 election campaign, but other leading Republicans did, including Tommy Thompson, secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush.

Seeking to deradicalize the idea during a symposium in Orlando in September 2008, Thompson said, "Just like people are required to have car insurance, they could be required to have health insurance."

Among the other Republicans who had embraced the idea was Mitt Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts crafted a huge reform by requiring almost all citizens to have coverage.

"Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate," Romney wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 2006. "But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian."

Romney was referring to the federal law that requires everyone to be treated in emergency rooms, regardless of their ability to pay.

Read more: Health bill included big Republican idea: individual mandate | McClatchy

Bupkus, eh?
 
Re: Obamacare Unconstitutional

You don't understand the argument is do you. The argument is not about helping those in need. It's about Congress over stepping there power as defined in the Constitution ( You know that document that is the Supreme Law of the Land).

So if I don't agree with your conservative take on the issue, then I just don't understand the argument? I understand your argument, I just don't agree (and it has nothing to do with my post). You can say that the mandate is unconstitutional all you like, but until the Supreme Court says so, it isn't.

Now that I've cleared that up for you, let's get to the real issue with your post. I was responding to a poster who claimed that pre-existing conditions and other issues would not be covered by the HC law. As I pointed out, the law does cover those people. It's common sense. Anybody paying even a little attention knows that. Now, do you care to dispute that fact, or did you just want to throw out right-wing talking points?
 
Last edited:
You and others can question that claim all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true. I don't understand how you couldn't know that at this point. It's common knowledge to those who have been paying attention to this issue.

Try these on for size. The first one is from Fox News, so you can't accuse me of using a biased source.






Bupkus, eh?

You seem to miss the point, there is a need for healthcare reform but not this kind of reform. Republicans made proposals on healthcare reform, i.e. tort reform, selling across state lines, identifying and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse not Federal Mandates and massive expansion of govt.

As for Romney, this healthcare legislation in MA is going to be an albatross but apparently you have paid zero attention to this model for Obamacare. I suggest educating yourself. Costs continue to rise as access does not assure cheaper healthcare as people cannot get into seeing a doctor thus ER usage is way up. Is that really what you want to see?
 
You and others can question that claim all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true. I don't understand how you couldn't know that at this point. It's common knowledge to those who have been paying attention to this issue.

Try these on for size. The first one is from Fox News, so you can't accuse me of using a biased source.

Bupkus, eh?

Wait. She called John McCain a "conservative republican"? Doesn't that make pretty much everything else she said rather circumpsect?

Regardless, even if it was a repulibcan idea, doesn't mean that it's automatically constitutional. So, the whole argument about who came up with the idea is rather unimportant.

Unless your giving tacit agreement to the fact that only repulibcans care about the consitution. So, if it came from a republican, it must be constitutional...
 
Last edited:
Wait. She called John McCain a "conservative republican"? Doesn't that make pretty much everything else she said rather circumpsect?

Regardless, even if it was a repulibcan idea, doesn't mean that it's automatically constitutional. So, the whole argument about who came up with the idea is rather unimportant.

No matter how circumspect you think she is, it doesn't change the fact that the mandate was originally a Republican idea.

Whether the mandate is constitutional is another argument and will be left to the SCOTUS to decide. I was simply pointing out to somebody who claimed otherwise that the mandate was in fact a Republican idea.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom