Obama Care, How Will Be Judged On Thursday?

[TexasWife25]

If you don't honestly believe that what you're seeing coming out of this administration represents at least a soft tyranny, you never understood its meaning, or implications in the first place. Which isn't surprising to me.

You were just instructed as to the meaning of a "tyranny of opinion" yet still, you do not see.

You, have taken a long walk off a short pier. Arguing any political point with you is like smashing my head against a brick wall repeatedly.

You complain about my partisanship, and yet you think all elected democrats are secret pinko commie socialists, and that the president is attempting to institute a form of tyrannical rule upon the nation.

You are so far into red thinking everything must have a pink haze to you. I can and have criticized the president, I can dislike things he does without doubting his place of birth or his love of our country. You cant say the same, at all.

If Romney wins the election, what will you do? You have amassed, in just the short time Ive been here, so many ridiculous posts about Obama .. how will you ever argue a point about Romney without adding a heaping does of hypocrisy?

 

[Liar]

I would be surprised if the entire law remains.

Lots of spin to ensue Thursday and beyond.

And apparently before...

 

[Wok]

Assuming the mandate is struck down, how will it be paid for? No, it is not rhetorical.

 

[Wok]

And apparently before...

Apparently.

 

[Wrong Element]

I would be surprised if the entire law remains.

Lots of spin to ensue Thursday and beyond.

I'd be mildly surprised based on the tenor of the oral argument, though if stare decisis still means anything to the current Court, upholding the law would be a 9-0 slam dunk.

I am curious about whether the Arizona decision says anything about the way health care is going to go. The "liberals"--I use that term with quotes because it's not like any of them are William O. Douglas--managed to form a coalition with Roberts and Kennedy for a decision that didn't satisfy activists on either side. That might not have been the exact preference of those three (Kagan didn't participate), but that was the only way they could be part of a majority; and the dissenters apparently wanted to push Roberts and Kennedy farther than they thought prudent.

I suspect Scalia, Alito, and Thomas would just as soon throw out the entire law; they can always invent a rationale for doing whatever the hell they want. But I really doubt Roberts and Kennedy would want to go that far. So the question is where you split the difference to get a 6-3 majority upholding only some of the law. And I'm not sure where that would be.

 

[Wok]

I'd be mildly surprised based on the tenor of the oral argument, though if stare decisis still means anything to the current Court, upholding the law would be a 9-0 slam dunk.

I am curious about whether the Arizona decision says anything about the way health care is going to go. The "liberals"--I use that term with quotes because it's not like any of them are William O. Douglas--managed to form a coalition with Roberts and Kennedy for a decision that didn't satisfy activists on either side. That might not have been the exact preference of those three (Kagan didn't participate), but that was the only way they could be part of a majority; and the dissenters apparently wanted to push Roberts and Kennedy farther than they thought prudent.

I suspect Scalia, Alito, and Thomas would just as soon throw out the entire law; they can always invent a rationale for doing whatever the hell they want. But I really doubt Roberts and Kennedy would want to go that far. So the question is where you split the difference to get a 6-3 majority upholding only some of the law. And I'm not sure where that would be.

Seems reasonable enough. I am not a law expert by any means. What I am having great difficulty wrapping my head around is the requirement to buy something. On the state level, I can understand. On the federal level, not so much.

 

[coachdb18]

Assuming the mandate is struck down, how will it be paid for? No, it is not rhetorical.

I hope the court does the right thing, although there's no trust on my behalf that they will strike it down. If the law stands, and in particular the 'individual mandate' there will be no limits as to what the government can force us to buy, and it will not matter what the political leaning of the government is at that point. We will at that point no longer be free.

 

[Wok]

I hope the court does the right thing, although there's no trust on my behalf that they will strike it down. If the law stands, and in particular the 'individual mandate' there will be no limits as to what the government can force us to buy, and it will not matter what the political leaning of the government is at that point. We will at that point no longer be free.

It will be the end of the world.

Totally, dude!

 

[RobDownSouth]

Address the OP instead.

She addressed your original post. You didn't even click the link, did you, you dumb son of a bitch.

 

[Wok]

She addressed your original post. You didn't even click the link, did you, you dumb son of a bitch.

Snopes birtherism fun.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Assuming the mandate is struck down, how will it be paid for? No, it is not rhetorical.

And therein is the crux of the argument.

Americans uniformly favor virtually every single item in the Obamacare legislation, but they loathe the "individual mandate", because that's the mechanism that pays for everything (by broadening the insurance pool).

If the judicial activists on the Supreme Court overturn the individual mandate but leave the rest of the legislation intact, they've created incentives for people to hold off buying insurance until they get sick. They would effectively destroy the health insurance industry as we know it.

If they overturn the entire legislation, we go back to the Dark Ages of pre-existing condition denials and cutting off health insurance to your kids at age 18 or so...and the backlash would likely send President Obama into a second term via a landslide.

The judicial activists pretty much have their hands tied, but that hasn't stopped them from a "party first, country second" philosophy. They already have two huge strikes against their credibility, Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. Overturning Obamacare to satisfy Republican demands would simply make people realize that the Supreme Court now legislates from the bench.

 

[Liar]

I hope the court does the right thing, although there's no trust on my behalf that they will strike it down. If the law stands, and in particular the 'individual mandate' there will be no limits as to what the government can force us to buy, and it will not matter what the political leaning of the government is at that point. We will at that point no longer be free.

Since state governments can and do force you to buy things, in at least one state specifically health insurance even, can we assume that you think only federal mandates is a threat to feeedom and that freedom on a more local level than that is irrelevant?

 

[RobDownSouth]

I hope the court does the right thing, although there's no trust on my behalf that they will strike it down. If the law stands, and in particular the 'individual mandate' there will be no limits as to what the government can force us to buy, and it will not matter what the political leaning of the government is at that point. We will at that point no longer be free.

This is the infamous "broccoli argument", specifically addressed and refudiated in post 12. Try and keep up, Mensa boy.

 

[Wok]

And therein is the crux of the argument.

Americans uniformly favor virtually every single item in the Obamacare legislation, but they loathe the "individual mandate", because that's the mechanism that pays for everything (by broadening the insurance pool).

If the judicial activists on the Supreme Court overturn the individual mandate but leave the rest of the legislation intact, they've created incentives for people to hold off buying insurance until they get sick. They would effectively destroy the health insurance industry as we know it.

If they overturn the entire legislation, we go back to the Dark Ages of pre-existing condition denials and cutting off health insurance to your kids at age 18 or so...and the backlash would likely send President Obama into a second term via a landslide.

The judicial activists pretty much have their hands tied, but that hasn't stopped them from a "party first, country second" philosophy. They already have two huge strikes against their credibility, Bush v. Gore and Citizens United. Overturning Obamacare to satisfy Republican demands would simply make people realize that the Supreme Court now legislates from the bench.

If health care was going to be overhauled like that, why did it not just got the full monty and go single payer? Lack of votes?

 

[Sean]

If health care was going to be overhauled like that, why did it not just got the full monty and go single payer? Lack of votes?

Because Obama lacks cojones.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Liar]

If health care was going to be overhauled like that, why did it not just got the full monty and go single payer? Lack of votes?

Pretty much. The health insurance lobby got lots if not all Dems too. Especially senators.

 

[RobDownSouth]

If health care was going to be overhauled like that, why did it not just got the full monty and go single payer? Lack of votes?

In a word: yes. President Obama embraced the Heritage Foundations' individual mandate, one that Republicans had been pushing since 1993. Republicans, though, had a higher priority than helping Americans get health care: Denying Obama credit for anything.

 

[Liar]

Because Obama lacks cojones.

...and that.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Because Obama lacks cojones.

I think he realized the votes just weren't there for single payer.

 

[Liar]

I think he realized the votes just weren't there for single payer.

He did push for a public option though. For about five minutes.

 

[coachdb18]

I hope the court does the right thing, although there's no trust on my behalf that they will strike it down. If the law stands, and in particular the 'individual mandate' there will be no limits as to what the government can force us to buy, and it will not matter what the political leaning of the government is at that point. We will at that point no longer be free.

This is the infamous "broccoli argument", specifically addressed and refudiated in post 12. Try and keep up, Mensa boy.

It seems intelligent conversation is devoid of this one too... not the first time, but it will now be the last.....

 

[RobDownSouth]

He did push for a public option though. For about five minutes.

Yeah, he did, but I got the impression he was going through the motions for the far-lefties.

I wonder if the solution is to open up Medicare to anyone who wants to buy it on a premium basis.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It seems intelligent conversation is devoid of this one too... not the first time, but it will now be the last.....

Your next post containing "intelligent coversation" will be your first.

Now give us some more talkin' points, boy!

 

[Peregrinator]

If Romney wins what will I do? Thank the Lord that our demise has been forestalled for at least a while.

I will be able to rip Romney limb from limb if he fucks up. Unlike you and the rest of the Obama sycophants, who have stood by every incompetent, un-American, unconstitutional, and arrogant political or economic action he's taken.

My support of Romney is centered only in the sure knowledge that he will never achieve Obama's level of idiocy as President.

Ahahahahahahahaha!

"I'm going to vote "hypocrite" because that's better than "alleged socialist really rather centrist but with the wrong party."