Thread: How Will Supreme Court Rule on Obamacare Mandate Provision

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

I'm not betting he gets a first.

I am. I was feeling good before, but SCOTUS just galvanized a LOT of fence-sitters, making me feel even better. Most people want ObamaCare gone.

-dale

dale,

sounds like a LOT of silver-lining dressing to me...was there any scenario that WOULD have gotten you down?

Originally Posted by astralis

dale,

sounds like a LOT of silver-lining dressing to me...was there any scenario that WOULD have gotten you down?

He could move to San Francisco...

It isn't a huge surprise. I had no doubt where thomas and Scalia would land. I find it ironic those that wanted Sotamayer to recuse herself on a case she had been involved in at a lower court have np with Justice Thomas household benefitting to the tune of over 1.5 million from those lobbying against the law. I imagine if George Soros held a secret yearly liberal confab some would be screaming to the heavens yet Thomas and Scalia both attend the Koch brothers politcal conference. The fact is Roberts ruled on principle based on passed decisons unlike the citizens united debacle. I imagine that was a teaching moment for why starry decis is so important as a principle when it has such a strong foundation and unexpected consequences. If this was struck down congresses rights to legislate labor and a few other areas would of been at risk. We would of risked a return to the weak commerce clause and the highly exploitive gilded era economy. As to rolling it back......good luck. Once people understand what that means to them it won't happen. The fact is insurance companies are lobbying against it that's all I need to know when deciding if it is good for consumers

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

The fact is insurance companies are lobbying against it that's all I need to know when deciding if it is good for consumers

Ya because asking why the insurance companies are against it would be too much work. We don't insure cars after the crash, we don't insure buildings after the fire, we don't make car drivers carry semi-trailer levels of auto-insurance... But now we do the equivalent for health care. We have radically increased costs with the law for very little gain.

Originally Posted by astralis

dale,

sounds like a LOT of silver-lining dressing to me...was there any scenario that WOULD have gotten you down?

Oh, I'm not happy at all - I don't like the decision and it confuses me, but you know by now I'm not one to wail endlessly about what I can't control. I thought Roberts was a good, smart Constitutionalist yesterday; I think the same way today even though I don't really understand how he arrived at his position.

BUT, I really do think, at this point, that the RomneyBot 9000 will whirr into the Oval Office next Jan 20th. If he can pull enough senators in on his coattails AND if he & the GOP can craft a decent replacement, then this problem can be solved legislatively, not judicially (which I understand some are saying might have been Roberts' point all along), and I like that solution better. It's not John Roberts' or the SCOTUS' fault that We the People voted in a pack of Democratic assclowns who wrote an execrable bill and broke their own rules to pass it into law.

-dale

Originally Posted by zraver

Ya because asking why the insurance companies are against it would be too much work. We don't insure cars after the crash, we don't insure buildings after the fire, we don't make car drivers carry semi-trailer levels of auto-insurance... But now we do the equivalent for health care. We have radically increased costs with the law for very little gain.

Nah it's more like it will no longer be when you have a crash you still get your car fixed it just costs three times as much and the cost gets passed to the rest of us. Who do you think pays all those unpaid ER bills and treatments for the uninsured now when they go to the ER? What do you think someone without the ability to buy good insurance does when they get cancer? They quit their job go on the dole get medicaid and apply for SSI.... Wouldnt it be better if they just missed some work? If people were actually going without care I'd agree but the previous system made going to the ER or on the Dole the only options and in the end cost us far more than the value of the shitty care they ended up getting.

In the end it's constitutional and an affordable care act.

Originally Posted by dalem

I am. I was feeling good before, but SCOTUS just galvanized a LOT of fence-sitters, making me feel even better. Most people want ObamaCare gone.

-dale

I'm still convinced that Obama will win.
It won't be easy or pretty, but he'll win.

Shortly the House of Reps will vote to repeal the AHCA; the Senate will let the House's resolution die in committee, no debate, no vote.

Romney will continue to promise repeal if elected.

People opposed to the ACHA before the Court's decision, remain opposed, and are more likely now to express their opposition at the ballot box in November.

Many people who stand to benefit most by the AHCA do not vote.

Two issues will be key. 1) The economic impact when costs begins to mount up on the Federal government in a few years and 2) the fact that it's a tax increase for those who do not want to buy health care insurance.

All that said, the GOP has to put out its plan and not just slam the existing one, and it must do so without detracting from the main message--the economy.

Today was a good day for the Constitution, i.e., the Commerce clause. In the long run, that will stand as the key decision made today. And the amazing thing about the decision is that all the liberals on the Court took part in it. For those who see Roberts as a traitor to his conservative beliefs, I say, 'wake up'. Not only did he reinforce the Commerce clause, cementing liberals in place, he all but said the Democrats lied before the bill was passed; it WAS a tax after all.

Originally Posted by JAD_333

Shortly the House of Reps will vote to repeal the AHCA; the Senate will let the House's resolution die in committee, no debate, no vote.

Romney will continue to promise repeal if elected.

People opposed to the ACHA before the Court's decision, remain opposed, and are more likely now to express their opposition at the ballot box in November.

Many people who stand to benefit most by the AHCA do not vote.

Two issues will be key. 1) The economic impact when costs begins to mount up on the Federal government in a few years and 2) the fact that it's a tax increase for those who do not want to buy health care insurance.

All that said, the GOP has to put out its plan and not just slam the existing one, and it must do so without detracting from the main message--the economy.

Today was a good day for the Constitution, i.e., the Commerce clause. In the long run, that will stand as the key decision made today. And the amazing thing about the decision is that all the liberals on the Court took part in it. For those who see Roberts as a traitor to his conservative beliefs, I say, 'wake up'. Not only did he reinforce the Commerce clause, cementing liberals in place, he all but said the Democrats lied before the bill was passed; it WAS a tax after all.

Hell, when have they actually done something for the economy???? What bills? The austerity of taking a few billion of funding that has no effect on long term deficits out of the economy today? Screaming GM should close? I can't think of anything thyey have actually done for the economy other than maybe give it a hiccup over the ridiculous debt deal they dont even want to honor?

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

Nah it's more like it will no longer be when you have a crash you still get your car fixed it just costs three times as much and the cost gets passed to the rest of us. Who do you think pays all those unpaid ER bills and treatments for the uninsured now when they go to the ER? What do you think someone without the ability to buy good insurance does when they get cancer? They quit their job go on the dole get medicaid and apply for SSI.... Wouldnt it be better if they just missed some work? If people were actually going without care I'd agree but the previous system made going to the ER or on the Dole the only options and in the end cost us far more than the value of the shitty care they ended up getting.

In the end it's constitutional and an affordable care act.

Then why is buying catastrophic health coverage illegal, hell just increase the tax to fund medicare to fund old age disease and let the market work. Fee for service (cash only) doctors are a lot cheaper than doctors that operate inside the insurance structure. Elective cosmetic surgery costs have come down 20% ven with increasingly expensive and complex technology while insurance covered costs have increased 400%.

What the law does do is encourage employers to shift people to the public rolls if they have 50 or more employers and discourage small employers from expanding past 49 employers.

Anyone actually think people will be able to afford an 8,000-12,000 Healthcare 'tax' (since that is how it is interpreted by Supremes). If the Median household income is 50k, and disposable is nowhere near the amount that would be required for the new Health Tax how will it be affordable?

Yes employers will continue to offer it but some prepared to offload their employees onto the program prior to it happening in anticipation. Others try to get people with gov't health medicare, medicaid to not be burdened with it.

Shifting the burden doesn't seem pheasable.

This is in addition to all those states that tried to contest it, may in some way hinder or not allow it to be enforced within their state thus sinking it potentially.

Assuming 50% of people are below 50k how will they afford it if the other 50% have to make up the difference? for a person earning 30k even 6k is a 20% tax rate increase and may be twice or thrice their actual disposable income.

Any thoughts for the future of this molding into something like another % off your wages instead of a penalty if you don't work and can't buy it that is levied against your family. Because it does seem a bit like debtor jailesque in nature where the family has to pay off the debt you did not incur but which accrues due to government mandate.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/incom...ian/index.html
Median household income for 2010 one of those.

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

Hell, when have they actually done something for the economy???? What bills? The austerity of taking a few billion of funding that has no effect on long term deficits out of the economy today? Screaming GM should close? I can't think of anything thyey have actually done for the economy other than maybe give it a hiccup over the ridiculous debt deal they dont even want to honor?

RR, this can't be a comment on what I said.

Originally Posted by cyppok

Anyone actually think people will be able to afford an 8,000-12,000 Healthcare 'tax' ...

Moved your thread here to where the discussion is.