Archive

Federal judge declares entire Obamacare law void

  • I Wear Pants
    CenterBHSFan;660952 wrote:No, it would not. Especially when you have politicians telling people that they can quit their jobs to explore their artistic side, and still be covered by this "healthcare reform".
    So, this bill actually encourages the free riders to keep on keeping on, and probably adding greatly to the pre-existing numbers.
    There is one politician that said that. One. And she was probably incorrect about that.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    ccrunner609;661045 wrote:Senator Bernie Sanders just said on MSNBC...."when we get rid of the insurance companies........"


    Now that statement tells you exactly where most of those stand.

    Considering Bernie Sanders is an I and a self reported socialist, I don't think he represents the whole D party. If it was Kerry or another moderate Senate D, then I'd agree with you.
  • CenterBHSFan
    I Wear Pants;660981 wrote:There is one politician that said that. One. And she was probably incorrect about that.
    Alright, even so. People saw it, read about it, heard it. I wouldn't even wanna guess how many people that will do exactly that.

    Are the criteria for getting health insurance the same as getting unemployment?
  • QuakerOats
    Excellent post Apple. And given the severable clause and its prominent application in this instance, I find it hard to believe that even the lib's on the supreme court can find a way around it to support to their liberal agenda. This could actually be a unanimous decision. Oooooohhhhhh Myyyyyy !
  • stlouiedipalma
    All of the rhetoric still doesn't answer what, if any, health care reform will take its place when this is repealed. We've heard a lot from Republicans about "repeal and replace", but I doubt anyone on this website will live to see any kind of replacement. It just isn't in their best interest to either provide coverage or to reduce costs.
  • I Wear Pants
    If this bill is repealed there will probably never be meaningful reform because everytime anyone brings it up the dissenting groups will just shout about how it didn't work last time, etc.

    So while this bill isn't perfect (far from it) I'd rather see it amended than entirely repealed.
  • BoatShoes
    CenterBHSFan;660952 wrote:No, it would not. Especially when you have politicians telling people that they can quit their jobs to explore their artistic side, and still be covered by this "healthcare reform".
    So, this bill actually encourages the free riders to keep on keeping on, and probably adding greatly to the pre-existing numbers.

    I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude but do you know what a free-rider is? "free riders" are those who consume more than their fair share of a public resource, or shoulder less than a fair share of the costs of its production. A person who quits their job and becomes an artist and doesn't purchase health insurance until he knows he's about to get sick is an example of a free rider. In the event there is a law in place that penalizes this person for free riding through the tax code in order to reach that monetary base that would have provided her health insurance, helps to neutralize this free riding by either 1.) encouraging this would be free rider to purchase health insurance since he can't ride for free or 2.) reaching consideration sufficient to cover would be costs of health insurance without the free rider.

    By definition, if you take money away from a would be free rider and apply it toward the good he should have purchased on his own, you're mitigating the free rider problem.

    Even if, hypothetically, less people purchase private health insurance on their own and decide to just pay the penalty, that money is going towards insuring them and mitigates the harmful effects of having fewer insured people. The mandate and subsequent penalty for not adhering to the mandate are key for this to happen. The mandate and penalty combo prevents person from shouldering less than their fair share of the cost of health care whether this burden is shifted back to them through the penalty or whether the penalty provides and incentive to bear their burden on their own.
  • believer
    stlouiedipalma;661592 wrote:All of the rhetoric still doesn't answer what, if any, health care reform will take its place when this is repealed. We've heard a lot from Republicans about "repeal and replace", but I doubt anyone on this website will live to see any kind of replacement. It just isn't in their best interest to either provide coverage or to reduce costs.
    You may be correct but I'm going to point this out again. Had the Dems who thought they had a "people's mandate" to ramrod this 2000-page monstrosity replete with Big Labor waivers and other flaws down the throats of the American people had allowed bi-partisan participation in the bill's processing, we might not even be discussing this right now.

    Had the "mandate" been thrown out, had tort reform been examined, had the ability to offer private health insurance across state lines been included, etc. perhaps - PERHAPS - this bill might have had a chance to withstand the constitutional test.

    I still picture the newly elected BHO wagging his condescending finger at SCOTUS during his first SOTU speech as he arrogantly chastised the high court with Pelosi snidely nodding in agreement behind him. This bill is about to land on the SCOTUS doorstep and Obama's crowning "achievement" is about to get its rightful place in American history...the shit can.

    I'm with Apple on this one. This shows the wisdom of our nation's founders. The checks and balances we have in place are remarkable and my faith in "the system" has been restored.
  • CenterBHSFan
    BS,

    No, I have no problem with being wrong about something just as I have no problem learning about something. I know what a free rider is, and you haven't proven me wrong about what I was referencing. Read it again, please. What I'm thinking is that perhaps I'm just not using proper enough language to get my point to you adequately. I don't know everything about this bill, and I'm quite sure that nobody on this forum does, either. What little we do know on the whole is largely interpretation of political leanings, I'm sure.

    My point is, there are people who work the system(s) that the government has put in place already. I'm willing to bet that it won't take an intellectual supernova to work this bill, either. Which of course will mean that the number of leeches will grow. Yes, I said leeches as I feel no need to make pretty with descriptions. How dare I, right? haha!

    At any rate, I'm not as supportive of the potential of this bill as you are, clearly. That then tells me that we are really arguing ideology, opinions, and feelings. None of which will change each others minds. If you see this bill as having the potential to be something great, then I respect your persistence.
  • BoatShoes
    believer;661657 wrote:You may be correct but I'm going to point this out again. Had the Dems who thought they had a "people's mandate" to ramrod this 2000-page monstrosity replete with Big Labor waivers and other flaws down the throats of the American people had allowed bi-partisan participation in the bill's processing, we might not even be discussing this right now.

    Had the "mandate" been thrown out, had tort reform been examined, had the ability to offer private health insurance across state lines been included, etc. perhaps - PERHAPS - this bill might have had a chance to withstand the constitutional test.

    I still picture the newly elected BHO wagging his condescending finger at SCOTUS during his first SOTU speech as he arrogantly chastised the high court with Pelosi snidely nodding in agreement behind him. This bill is about to land on the SCOTUS doorstep and Obama's crowning "achievement" is about to get its rightful place in American history...the shit can.

    I'm with Apple on this one. This shows the wisdom of our nation's founders. The checks and balances we have in place are remarkable and my faith in "the system" has been restored.

    1. The reason bho and his pals upset their base is because they did try to get bipartisan support for this bill that is MORE CONSERVATIVE than one's previously supported by Conservatives like Richard Nixon, Bob Dole and Tom Daschle, etc. They wasted time trying to reason with people who did not want to reason because it was more important to believe that BHO is a socialist trying to bring down america.

    2. Such a mandate is the only way we're going to keep a health insurance system with predominantly private providers. So, if you want to keep government small you're going to have to accept this point sooner or later. I'd rather have them making me pay a fine if I don't accept my natural burdens than designing my health plan.

    3. They missed the opportunity to do much meaningful medical malpractice reform but again, when conservatives say "tort reform," they typically mean damage caps. conservatives seem to think that damage caps are some kind of magic pill when others like FFT, blue blood conservatives have demonstrated that this isn't the case...and as a matter of principle, it just seems strange that the side of individual rights is so eager to limit an individuals right to be compensated when harmed by negligence. There are things that can be done to reform this area but the fact it wasn't included in A MODERATE BILL should not have prevented support of it.

    And, when you add in the fact that Tort law is a state law regime and that in our federal system the 50 courageous states have adopted their own tort laws, it is laughable to hear supposedly small government conservatives demand the feds create damage cap laws binding on the 50 states.

    4. This bill DOES ALLOW PRIVATE INSURERS TO OFFER INSURANCE ACROSS STATE LINES in 2014 in a regulated market. Just like with say, public utilities for example we agree that their ought to be some regulation of their prices because of the high social cost of allowing a lot of competitors in....in the health markets we realize that insurance companies might try to maximize their profits by only offering insurance to healthy persons, so when we allow a nationwide health insurance market, which Obamacare does, we agree to regulate the insurance providers to some to degree to balance against the social cost of potentially only providing insurance to healthy persons, etc.

    5. Given the political nature of the court and current commerce clause jurisprudence you're still going to have to show some evidence as to why they court would knock down the mandate. He's got 4 on his side already guaranteed. Two that have been favorable toward expanded commerce clause jurisprudence in the past. And, if history is any guide, when the public and the presidents have scolded the high court they have caved....because after all, they have no executive authority to enforce their decisions.
  • QuakerOats
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110202/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_senate;_ylt=AtafQTeb21T8vGpfWlh5pmJ34T0D;_ylu=X3oDMTJtdmx1bnM1BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTEwMjAyL3VzX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX3NlbmF0ZQRjcG9zAzIEcG9zAzgEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDc2VuYXRlcmVwdWJs
  • Ty Webb

    And you do realize it will fail right??
  • ptown_trojans_1

    Massive waste of time.
    Instead, R's offer up real solutions that will fix the massive problems with the bill instead of political BS theater.
  • fish82
    Ty Webb;662457 wrote:And you do realize it will fail right??
    So what? 23 dems are on the hot seat in 2012. I see no problem forcing them to go on record defending an unconstitutional law that was shoved through sans vote, and against the wishes of the people.
    ptown_trojans_1;662466 wrote:Massive waste of time.
    Instead, R's offer up real solutions that will fix the massive problems with the bill instead of political BS theater.

    How long does it take to call the roll? 30 minutes?
  • Ty Webb
    fish82;662467 wrote:So what? 23 dems are on the hot seat in 2012. I see no problem forcing them to go on record defending an unconstitutional law that was shoved through sans vote, and against the wishes of the people.



    How long does it take to call the roll? 30 minutes?

    So you're ok with the Senate wasting valueable time on something that has NO chance of passing instead of trynig to work together to solve real problems?
  • ptown_trojans_1
    fish82;662467 wrote:So what? 23 dems are on the hot seat in 2012. I see no problem forcing them to go on record defending an unconstitutional law that was shoved through sans vote, and against the wishes of the people.



    How long does it take to call the roll? 30 minutes?

    Add in the amendment process and speeches made on the floor and it could be between 30 minutes to all day.
  • fish82
    Ty Webb;662474 wrote:So you're ok with the Senate wasting valueable time on something that has NO chance of passing instead of trynig to work together to solve real problems?
    I'm okay with holding you people accountable for your actions. What "real problems" will they solve in the 30 minutes it takes to call the roll?
  • ptown_trojans_1
    fish82;662495 wrote:I'm okay with holding you people accountable for your actions. What "real problems" will they solve in the 30 minutes it takes to call the roll?

    Instead, go back to committee and go through the bill, adding and subtracting sections.
    Then, bring it to the floor.
  • Cleveland Buck
    The idea of these bozos meeting in a room to "solve our problems" is frightening enough. I'm happy when they can't agree on anything.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Cleveland Buck;662548 wrote:The idea of these bozos meeting in a room to "solve our problems" is frightening enough. I'm happy when they can't agree on anything.

    Yet, you want to decrease the debt?
  • ptown_trojans_1
    ccrunner609;662694 wrote:Come on Ptown.....you are probably the smartest person on here and you cant be buying into the BS that any type of government is going to decrease anything? There never has been and never will be any type of government legislation that is EVER going to be cost negative.

    That wasn't the point.
    He was referring to he does not want them to do anything. I was just pointing out that they need to reduce the debt, reduce spending and fix SS, Medicare, etc. That is something, not nothing.
  • Cleveland Buck
    ptown_trojans_1;662699 wrote:That wasn't the point.
    He was referring to he does not want them to do anything. I was just pointing out that they need to reduce the debt, reduce spending and fix SS, Medicare, etc. That is something, not nothing.

    Yeah, get back to me when they are ready to do those things. Until then I don't want them to do anything.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Cleveland Buck;662765 wrote:Yeah, get back to me when they are ready to do those things. Until then I don't want them to do anything.

    Ok, so don't complain when the debt keeps going up and up and the budget stays at the same level.
  • dwccrew
    Cleveland Buck;662548 wrote:The idea of these bozos meeting in a room to "solve our problems" is frightening enough. I'm happy when they can't agree on anything.
    I agree. Gridlock is better than them continually passing redundant and useless (not too mention wasteful) bills.
    ptown_trojans_1;662672 wrote:Yet, you want to decrease the debt?

    If they can't agree, it'll probably save more than waste. At least we won't be getting legislation rammed through that will waste billions i.e. another stimulus, Obamacare, etc. If they can't agree, they can't pass that garbage.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    dwccrew;662838 wrote:I agree. Gridlock is better than them continually passing redundant and useless (not too mention wasteful) bills.



    If they can't agree, it'll probably save more than waste. At least we won't be getting legislation rammed through that will waste billions i.e. another stimulus, Obamacare, etc. If they can't agree, they can't pass that garbage.

    I agree on point that no agreement equals no more massive bills. But, no agreement also means the status quo, which we all agree is not sustainable. The debt will continue to rise, the budget will continue to grow or at the very least stay flat with CR's and the country will be worse off.