• 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!

What Will SCOTUS Decide About Obamacare?

What in a nutshell will SCOTUS' decision be?


  • Total voters
    25
sure they do.

"if you see doctors, you must have health insurance"

That's not a law, genius.

"if you own a car, you must have car insuance"

Not if you don't drive it on public roads. And it's a state law.


"if you live in a flood-prone area, you must have flood insurance"

That, too, is not a law, genius.

"you must have a smoke and CO alarm in your home"

Where that's in effect, that, too, is a state law.

Tell me . . . in this case, why does the state/federal distinction matter? Can you tell me?
 
That's not a law, genius.



Not if you don't drive it on public roads. And it's a state law.




That, too, is not a law, genius.



Where that's in effect, that, too, is a state law.

Tell me . . . in this case, why does the state/federal distinction matter? Can you tell me?

You do realize you're debating Thunder right? None of this will be answered. All will be avoided. You may as well play in traffic or something because its just as productive. You've been around a lot longer than me bro, you should know this lol.
 
sure they do.

No they don't.

"if you see doctors, you must have health insurance"

No you don't. You can pay for it out of pocket.

"if you own a car, you must have car insuance"

Wrong on two counts. 1: car insurance is state mandated, not federal mandated. Two different animals. (you should recognize this from your own city) 2: you can own 50 cars and not have to have insurance for even one. The only time you need insurance is if you drive on public roads. However you can drive your car/s around your own property all that you want without having to have insurance.

"if you live in a flood-prone area, you must have flood insurance"

If such a law even exists (which I doubt) it would at most be state mandated. Not federal. Now...do you have evidence that such a law exists on the federal level?

"you must have a smoke and CO alarm in your home"

Again, this is not federally mandated for any privately owned home. And I would challenge you to show otherwise.
 
it is NOW.

Oh, sure, there's a constitutional argument: "Mr. Justice, it's clearly constitutional because it's currently a law."

Not that you can't pay out of pocket if you see a doctor anyway, so no, it's not even a law . . . genius.

Not to mention that the "law" requires you to have it even if you DON'T see a doctor, so you fail a third time in a three-word post. That's gotta be a record.
 
Last edited:
Oh, sure, there's a constitutional argument: "Mr. Justice, it's clearly constitutional because it's currently a law."

nice job moving the goalposts there. very impressive.

first you say "its not a law".

now you say "its not Constitutional".

very cute. and very stupid.

:)
 
nice job moving the goalposts there. very impressive.

first you say "its not a law".

now you say "its not Constitutional".

very cute. and very stupid.

:)

Yeah, I knew there was no chance you'd actually understand that.
 
"government" doesn't mean just the Federal government.

We are talking about Obamacare as such we are talking about federal laws. The federal government is more limited in what it can do than state governments. Nice try at deflection though. Well....not really as it failed miserably.
 
oh, I understand very well what "moving the goalposts" is. You did it very recently.

Obviously you do understand what "moving the goalposts" is. You just tried it by trying to bring state laws into a discussion that is talking about federal laws.
 
oh, I understand very well what "moving the goalposts" is. You did it very recently.

It's not a law; I explained how it isn't in two different respects.

And you were using the example of requiring health insurance to justify the Obamacare mandate, so if you say "it is NOW," then you're using Obamacare as an example to justify Obamacare.

I fully realize that you do not understand that this is what you did. It's kind of like watching a dog run itself into a wall repeatedly -- you feel sorry for it, but the "thud" is just so damn funny.
 
Not a point which has a thing to do with constitutionality. If it's unconstitutional (and I can think of more than one way that it is), then it needs to go, regardless of any of this.

Constitutionality isn't a utilitarian proposition.

Although that's a nice idea, in practice Supreme Court justices are often guided by their own ideology...and their own views on the merits of the Affordable Care Act might well come into play (although I'm sure they can find do constitutional contortions to justify their opinion). In high-profile court cases, there is absolutely a utilitarian element in play.

I'm just saying that overturning the individual mandate will probably not be the conservative victory many on the right are hoping for. At best (from their perspective), it will likely be a fleeting victory...but in the end I think it would pave the way for a much more comprehensive takeover of health care than the Affordable Care Act. For example, if the Supreme Court rules that you can't force people to buy a private product, the obvious policy retort is to force them to buy a government product instead. And I think that would have a lot more popular support than a return to a system where insurers could discriminate based on preexisting conditions.
 
Although that's a nice idea, in practice Supreme Court justices are often guided by their own ideology...and their own views on the merits of the Affordable Care Act might well come into play (although I'm sure they can find do constitutional contortions to justify their opinion). In high-profile court cases, there is absolutely a utilitarian element in play.

that is precisely why I make the prediction I do. I can't remember who, but I do recall that one of Ted Kennedy's aides remarking after his death that he had seen the SCOTUS as a sort of "Super-Senate", an inherently political branch.
 
It's amazing how people don't mind signing over their liberties in small pieces at a time.

Didn't Orwell warn us about this kind of thing?
 
Although that's a nice idea, in practice Supreme Court justices are often guided by their own ideology...and their own views on the merits of the Affordable Care Act might well come into play (although I'm sure they can find do constitutional contortions to justify their opinion). In high-profile court cases, there is absolutely a utilitarian element in play.

I'm just saying that overturning the individual mandate will probably not be the conservative victory many on the right are hoping for. At best (from their perspective), it will likely be a fleeting victory...but in the end I think it would pave the way for a much more comprehensive takeover of health care than the Affordable Care Act. For example, if the Supreme Court rules that you can't force people to buy a private product, the obvious policy retort is to force them to buy a government product instead. And I think that would have a lot more popular support than a return to a system where insurers could discriminate based on preexisting conditions.

Why do you think "private product" and "government product" is a constitutional distinction? That one's pulled from whole cloth.
 
Although that's a nice idea, in practice Supreme Court justices are often guided by their own ideology...and their own views on the merits of the Affordable Care Act might well come into play (although I'm sure they can find do constitutional contortions to justify their opinion). In high-profile court cases, there is absolutely a utilitarian element in play.

I'm just saying that overturning the individual mandate will probably not be the conservative victory many on the right are hoping for. At best (from their perspective), it will likely be a fleeting victory...but in the end I think it would pave the way for a much more comprehensive takeover of health care than the Affordable Care Act. For example, if the Supreme Court rules that you can't force people to buy a private product, the obvious policy retort is to force them to buy a government product instead. And I think that would have a lot more popular support than a return to a system where insurers could discriminate based on preexisting conditions.

You're right about moving us closer to takeover. If they find that provision unconstitutional, the solution, then, is to make people either purchase private health insurance...or purchase a public policy. Hmmmm....
 
You're right about moving us closer to takeover. If they find that provision unconstitutional, the solution, then, is to make people either purchase private health insurance...or purchase a public policy. Hmmmm....

Why would those be the only choices?
 
or have a system of government administered national health care insurance removing the private insurance companies from the mix thereby removing the hated right wing objection to being forced to buy a private companies goods.
 
I am against obama care and I am sure the supremes will invalidate it but I will give the Dem's credit for making health care an issue. The cost of health care is absolutely through the roof and the insurance premiums reflect this. Reps need to present an alternative plan that will stop and even reverse the skyrocketing cost of wellness in this country, I haven't see one yet that does anything but nibble around the edges.
 
that is precisely why I make the prediction I do. I can't remember who, but I do recall that one of Ted Kennedy's aides remarking after his death that he had seen the SCOTUS as a sort of "Super-Senate", an inherently political branch.

Yeah, you can't expect one iota of objectivity from any branch of government.
 
I"m betting for a narrow ruling that overturns just the individual mandate. Sad, because I'd like to see the entire, 2,000+ Page Putrid monstrosity heaved overboard, but I'm thinking Anthony Kennedy the Court will see simply striking the mandate as the preferable political option.

The way I see this, its a bill (Affordable Health Care) for the masses, not necessarily for the conservative wealthy.
The term "Obamacare" is disrespectful...but then, so are conservatives, who, IMO, never deserved their wealth..
That our nations health care was and still is , to me, obviously in need of reform/improvement...but not so for those hiding in their ivory towers..
Our Surpreme Court consists of men with more intelligence and sensitivity than wealthy conservatives, but I hope they do what is best for most of our people..
 

Yeah, I agree. Same with toilet paper, we should all have to buy it because, inevitably, we will all need it.:roll:

If you don't buy toilet paper I don't care because when you need toilet paper and don't have any we tax payers are not going to be the ones who have to pick up the bill to pay for your toilet paper.

However, if you needed emergency surgery and do not have health insurance the costs shift to the rest of us.
In fact most of us who do have health insurance pay more than $1,000 a year for the uninsured.
No one can guarantee that he or she will not need healthcare, and most people without insurance are unable to pay for the care they receive. As a result, they shift those costs to the rest of us, either because the government picks up the tab or because hospitals required to treat the sick regardless of ability to pay pass on the costs to others in higher fees. The uninsured thereby shift about $43 billion in costs each year to the rest of us, increasing the average premium for insured families by more than $1,000 a year.

Why Obama's Healthcare Law Is Constitutional | The Nation
 
I am against Obama care and I am sure the supremes will invalidate it but I will give the Dem's credit for making health care an issue. The cost of health care is absolutely through the roof and the insurance premiums reflect this. Reps need to present an alternative plan that will stop and even reverse the skyrocketing cost of wellness in this country, I haven't see one yet that does anything but nibble around the edges.

True health care reform must originate from an apolitical group of concerned citizens...a group of doctors, nurses, citizens....but all special people who know compassion/sensitivity and of course medicine.....Overseen by President Obama , I think...Or we could go the easy route and copy the Canadian or Australian plan....
 
Back
Top Bottom