SCOTUS-HealthCare Reform

[AZGrizFan]

I got a fever. And the only prescription.....is more cowbell!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyV2cPLu ... ure=topics[/youtube]

This just in, Big Pharma to raise prices for cowbell by 3000%.

Ah, fuck.

[houndawg]

Ordering Americans to purchase health insurance so that they pay into a system that they are undoubtedly going to use at some point is pretty essential to ensure that the system doesn't go bankrupt. I don't need any verbal gymnastics to justify that, either.

The difference is that healthcare isn't addressed in the constitution. Providing for and organizing a civilian milita is DIRECTLY addressed in the constitution. Is that REALLY that difficult to understand the difference?

That was a different Constitution; one that didn't believe in standing Armies.

[BDKJMU]

Kind of ironic on the part of the hypocritical left: Keeping marriage between a man and a woman, which according to them is govt intruding into people's private and economic lives which is bad.

But when it comes to govt intruding into people's private and economic lives by forcing people to purchase a private product, that is somehow good.

Edit: Typos.

[AZGrizFan]

The difference is that healthcare isn't addressed in the constitution. Providing for and organizing a civilian milita is DIRECTLY addressed in the constitution. Is that REALLY that difficult to understand the difference?

That was a different Constitution; one that didn't believe in standing Armies.

True. Which is why they mandated everyone buy a gun----IN 1792!!! To reach back over 200 fucking years for "precedent" is laughable and shows just how desparate donks are to get this legitimized.

[danefan]

Kind of ironic on the part of the hypocritical left: Keeping marriage between a man and a woman, which according to them is govt intruding into people's private and economic lives which is bad.

But when it comes to govt intruding into people intruding into people's private and economic lives by forcing people to purchase a private product, that is somehow good.

[Tod]

That was a different Constitution; one that didn't believe in standing Armies.

True. Which is why they mandated everyone buy a gun----IN 1792!!! To reach back over 200 **** years for "precedent" is laughable and shows just how desparate donks are to get this legitimized.

It was many founding fathers that were involved in that decision. Shouldn't that tell you something?

[AZGrizFan]

True. Which is why they mandated everyone buy a gun----IN 1792!!! To reach back over 200 **** years for "precedent" is laughable and shows just how desparate donks are to get this legitimized.

It was many founding fathers that were involved in that decision. Shouldn't that tell you something?

Doesn't matter if it was every single one of them. They were FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION. I realize that's a unique concept to most libtards (both here and elsewhere)....but the current SC proved what a bunch of gutless wonders they really are (espcially Roberts) by not being willing to stand up and defend the constitution.

[Tod]

It was many founding fathers that were involved in that decision. Shouldn't that tell you something?

Doesn't matter if it was every single one of them. They were FOLLOWING THE CONSTITUTION. I realize that's a unique concept to most libtards (both here and elsewhere)....but the current SC proved what a bunch of gutless wonders they really are (espcially Roberts) by not being willing to stand up and defend the constitution.

At least one of us is confused. I think it's you.

What part of the Constitution calls for health care insurance?

[UNI88]

Kind of ironic on the part of the hypocritical left: Keeping marriage between a man and a woman, which according to them is govt intruding into people's private and economic lives which is bad.

But when it comes to govt intruding into people's private and economic lives by forcing people to purchase a private product, that is somehow good.

Edit: Typos.

'

That hypocrisy of attempting to dictate personal decisions runs both ways ...
- universal healthcare/right to not have health insurance or pay for others to have health insurance
- gay marriage/marriage is between a man and a woman
- pro-choice/pro-life
- ban guns/right to bear arms

[CaseyOrourke]

I read an article in The Atlantic which as a history teacher makes me chortle as Roberts may have used history as a ploy of giving the president what he wanted, but stealing his thunder by not giving him it in a way he could use without putting himself at a disadvantage similar to what John Marshall's decision in Marbury v. Madison 1803 did to Thomas Jefferson.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... ok/259121/

The parallels here are eerie. President Obama was ready for the Court to uphold the mandate -- in which case he would have trumpeted the decision as a vindication of the law and a rejection of Republican criticism that Democrats had overreached. And he similarly, was ready for the Court to strike down the mandate, or even the whole Act (apparently, he had three different speeches prepared for all the possibilities). He'll never read those speeches, but he almost certainly would have challenged the Court head-on and tried to make its conservative bent into a wedge issue in his campaign -- he has been quite willing to politicize the Court in the past. There was no prospect that Obama would have ignored the ruling -- as Jefferson might have ignored a mandamus writ -- but the ensuing political struggle could have damaged the Court's credibility. And it might very well have hurt Roberts's legacy in particular, given that there had been a focused attempt in the press to paint a narrative about him as the leader of a Court out to get Democrats and Obama.

Now, much as Jefferson was two centuries ago, Obama is boxed in [Marbury v. Madison 1803]. What is he to do? He can't criticize the Court for judicial activism, as it upheld the law (putting aside the way the Court limited the Medicaid provisions, which are not particularly salient to voters). The decision undercuts a potential theme of his campaign -- that a conservative Court is out of control. And yet Obama can't trumpet the decision either, since it states that Democrats overreached in trying to justify the law under the Commerce Clause. Worse yet, it calls the mandate something that Democrats didn't want it to be: a tax.

Conversely, the decision may be the optimal result for Mitt Romney. If the Court had struck down the mandate, it would have taken off the table an issue that Republican base voters care tremendously about. But in upholding the law, the Court didn't just leave that issue on the table; it gave Romney tremendous ammunition he can use to criticize Obama as a tax raiser.

[Gil Dobie]

Kind of ironic on the part of the hypocritical left: Keeping marriage between a man and a woman, which according to them is govt intruding into people's private and economic lives which is bad.

But when it comes to govt intruding into people's private and economic lives by forcing people to purchase a private product, that is somehow good.

Edit: Typos.

'

That hypocrisy of attempting to dictate personal decisions runs both ways ...
- universal healthcare/right to not have health insurance or pay for others to have health insurance
- gay marriage/marriage is between a man and a woman
- pro-choice/pro-life
- ban guns/right to bear arms

It runs 2 ways, Republican and Democrat, everyone else is shaking there heads

[ASUMountaineer]

So how bout that Health Insurance Industry Stimulus Plan that was just upheld by SCOTUS

[ASUMountaineer]

Alito/Scalia/Thomas are the most partisan hackj udges the court has seen since Taney.

All three have no business on the court, especially since morons that watch Fox think they are gods.


They have gotten very little right since they were appointed - and the sooner they die or retire, the better our country will be.

That's a calm, reasonable post.

[dbackjon]

Alito/Scalia/Thomas are the most partisan hackj udges the court has seen since Taney.

All three have no business on the court, especially since morons that watch Fox think they are gods.


They have gotten very little right since they were appointed - and the sooner they die or retire, the better our country will be.

That's a calm, reasonable post.

[HI54UNI]

From Twitter so take it for what it is worth but could be huge if true -

It appears the DOJ has filed a brief to claim Obamacare is unconstitutional. When Obamacare was ruled constitutional, you'll recall, Justice Roberts bailed it out by calling it a "tax." Recall last year's tax bill? Part of it was the repeal of the individual mandate. Yes, that's the same individual mandate that Chief Justice Roberts had upheld as a tax, hence why it could have been repealed with 51 votes. So the Justice Department now argues ACA is unconstitutional because the tax has been repealed, but the individual mandate (which is no penalty now) is still part of the law. Hence, the individual mandate cannot be a tax, thus resulting in its being unconstitutional.
And, the Justice Department further avers, the provision is not severable from the rest of ACA, rendering the entire law unconstitutional.

[93henfan]

Why am I supposed to care about Scottish Healthcare Reform?

[HI54UNI]

Trump's Justice Department says the ACA is unconstitutional

The Justice Department will not defend the Affordable Care Act in court, and says it believes the law's individual mandate — the provision the Supreme Court upheld in 2012 — has become unconstitutional.

Why it matters: The Justice Department almost always defends federal laws when they're challenged in court. Its departure from that norm in this case is a major development — career DOJ lawyers removed themselves from the case as the department announced this shift in its position.

The details: The ACA's individual mandate requires most people to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty. The Supreme Court upheld that in 2012 as a valid use of Congress' taxing power.

When Congress claimed it repealed the individual mandate last year, what it actually did was drop the tax penalty to $0.
So the coverage requirement itself is still technically on the books. And a group of Republican attorneys general, representing states led by Texas, say it's now unconstitutional — because the specific penalty the Supreme Court upheld is no longer in effect.
The Justice Department agreed with that position in a brief filed Thursday night.
DOJ said the courts should strike down the coverage requirement, as well as the provision of the law that forces insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

Between the lines: For the Justice Department to stop defending a federal law is not unprecedented — the Obama administration did it with the Defense of Marriage Act. But it is exceptionally rare.

Yes, but: A group of Democratic attorneys general has been granted permission to defend the ACA in this case, so someone will be in its corner.

What to watch: The argument against it is by no means a slam dunk. For starters, critics — now including the Justice Department — will have to prove that people are still being injured by the remaining shell of the individual mandate, even without a penalty for non-compliance.

https://www.axios.com/trumps-justice-de ... 828a7.html

[HI54UNI]

Why am I supposed to care about Scottish Healthcare Reform?

Don't make fun of Scots or you will have CID all over you.

[CID1990]

Make all the fun you want

We invented the modern world

we laugh at the little peoples' jokes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[93henfan]

Make all the fun you want

We invented the modern world

we laugh at the little peoples' jokes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The invisible tape was the best shit you all came up with. It's magic!

[Ivytalk]

Make all the fun you want

We invented the modern world

we laugh at the little peoples' jokes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The invisible tape was the best **** you all came up with. It's magic!

That's sacrilege! Scotsmen are Scottish, not Scotch. Scotch is a drink.

[Ibanez]

Make all the fun you want

We invented the modern world

we laugh at the little peoples' jokes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The invisible tape was the best shit you all came up with. It's magic!

If it's not Scottish, it's crap!

[93henfan]

The invisible tape was the best **** you all came up with. It's magic!

That's sacrilege! Scotsmen are Scottish, not Scotch. Scotch is a drink.

Nobody really cares. Scotch, Scottish, Scots. Whatever.

[CAA Flagship]

[CID1990]

Make all the fun you want

We invented the modern world

we laugh at the little peoples' jokes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The invisible tape was the best **** you all came up with. It's magic!

dont forget the pneumatic bicycle tire


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk