|
Post by ssmynkint on Jun 28, 2012 9:57:43 GMT -5
"Obamacare" is now the law of the land, with Chief Justice Roberts voting to uphold it.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Jun 28, 2012 13:12:38 GMT -5
Yeah, how about that. I wonder if the left still thinks Roberts is an activist judge. The reasoning really surprised me and, I think, most other people. I thought they would use the tax angle possibly for putting off a decision until the tax went into place, I never thought they would use it to justify congress's right to mandate people buying insurance. Like it or not this was a very neat way of getting the ACA through constitutional muster without directly making a decision on the commerce clause. I'm looking forward to reading the majority and minority opinions on this.
|
|
JC
Full Forumite
No Messiah
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by JC on Jun 28, 2012 13:46:14 GMT -5
The essence of Roberts’s ruling was: • “The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part,” Roberts wrote. • “The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it.” • But “it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but (who) choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.” Roberts made a point of noting that he and the other justices “possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/28/12457822-supreme-court-upholds-health-care-law?lite_____________________________________________________ Here is the full ruling PDF: msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/scotus_opinion_on_ACA_from_msnbc.com.pdf
|
|
BlackFox
Senior Forumite
Stay thirsty my friends
Posts: 4,496
|
Post by BlackFox on Jun 28, 2012 14:09:01 GMT -5
The comments on WRCBs Facebook feed are embarrassing.
|
|
osrb
Senior Forumite
Semper Fi
Mostly Harmless
Posts: 3,150
|
Post by osrb on Jun 29, 2012 6:54:45 GMT -5
Now the government will be able to track every part of your medical treatment. they will know every drug you get prescribed they will be able to tell the doctors what they can and cannot do. In other words people who could not even run an whorehouse will be in charge of your health.
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Jun 29, 2012 7:16:20 GMT -5
OMG!! They'll be JUST LIKE INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!
OOOooo, OOOooo, and DEATH PANELS too, JUST LIKE INSURANCE COMPANIES!
|
|
|
Post by Warkitty on Jun 29, 2012 7:17:04 GMT -5
Worse, they'll do it THROUGH insurance companies!
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Jun 29, 2012 7:18:33 GMT -5
OH NO! CORPORATE SOCIALISM!!!
|
|
|
Post by pictureman on Jun 29, 2012 7:29:52 GMT -5
Anytime you get healthcare you sign a release giving the healthcare provider (e.g. your doctor) permission to disclose your condition and his treatment. This information is filed with the Medical Information Bureau for access by any other healthcare provider and insurance companies.
For example, let's say that you had once received treatment for a "possible heart condition" yet failed to disclose that on an application for health insurance. If you subsequently suffer a heart attack your new insurance company, during its investigation of your past medical treatments, will learn that you had an unreported treatment for "chest pains", may decide that this is a "pre-existing condition" and refuse payment for your current hospital stay.
As I understand it (and I don't really understand it) Obama's health care program precludes this kind of "screening".
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Jun 29, 2012 11:41:04 GMT -5
Those of you adamantly opposed to the ACA better not vote for Mitt Romney because he pretty much authored this legislation. You better not vote for Barack Obama because he championed this legislation. That leaves you Gary Johnson as the only viable candidate you have to vote for.
|
|
JC
Full Forumite
No Messiah
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by JC on Jun 29, 2012 11:58:03 GMT -5
Romney want's to repeal Obamacare because his name isn't on it. Oh, and because Obama is a commie! From: www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/06/romneycare-and-obamacare-differ-only-in-inconsequential-ways.html"The problem for Romney is that there are no fundamental differences between the two laws. Both programs create exchanges where private insurers compete. Both require individuals to purchase insurance. And both subsidize those who can’t afford it. It’s a relatively new way of extending coverage. Massachusetts was the first place it was adopted, and the Affordable Care Act was the second. The two laws are, in the words of Jonathan Gruber, who helped design both the Romney and Obama plans, “the same fucking bill.”[emphasis mine] Can't wait until the elections to see if it's called "O Care" or R Care"
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on Jun 29, 2012 12:07:54 GMT -5
The thing that bugs me about Romney's 'promise' most is that he wants the job of President but apparently does not know the job description. Had Mitt actually read the Constitution he would know that the President does not have the authority to do most things he promises.
|
|
osrb
Senior Forumite
Semper Fi
Mostly Harmless
Posts: 3,150
|
Post by osrb on Jul 1, 2012 14:40:04 GMT -5
The thing that bugs me about Romney's 'promise' most is that he wants the job of President but apparently does not know the job description. Had Mitt actually read the Constitution he would know that the President does not have the authority to do most things he promises. . Well BO was supposibly as constutuional lawyer but does not seem to have ever read it. He has proven time and time again that he lacks any type of leadership ability. Now that SCOUS has said the government can force us to purchase anything as long as it is done as a tax what els are they going to force on us. I think what we need is the "Home Protection Act". This wil require every house hold to have a firearm for protection if you will not purchase one you will have to pay extra taxes in order to have one.
|
|
|
Post by Half-Tard on Jul 1, 2012 22:02:12 GMT -5
Except for people in section 8 housing and Hud projects. They can't afford one we'd have to buy that for them too!!..Would help clean up the gene pool...I like it.. I'm game..
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on Jul 2, 2012 11:14:57 GMT -5
Meh. The law already makes me buy auto insurance. The bank makes me buy home insurance. Although the politicians pretend there is a difference, there isn't.
What matters more to me are things they spend my taxes on. I really loathe that I have to foot the bill to kill foreigners for imaging an un-American god.
|
|
osrb
Senior Forumite
Semper Fi
Mostly Harmless
Posts: 3,150
|
Post by osrb on Jul 2, 2012 11:38:16 GMT -5
Grid you are incorrect. Not all states require auto insurance and it is the banks that require insurance if you want to get a loan for a house. If you do not have a loan you do not need insurance. So your argument is invalid on its face.
Do you think the once size fits all forced federal government model is the answer? We can see how well it has worked in the past. Like the billions if not trillions waisted for the TSA, Department of Energy, Department of Educatin, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the list goes on. We need to trim our government to a manageable size long before we add new expenses.
It seems that nobody in government even comes close to remembering business 101. What is the true ROI and unintended consequences. Everybody on the left keeps pointing out how many people had no healthcare due to bad Health but if you really look at it is less than 1% of the population. Now they say that a 400 lb couch potato cannot be denied or charged more for insurance than someone who takes care of their self. They keep saying how people where denied health care but I have not met anybody who could not get medical help they either paid out of pocket or went to a free clinic. Many times playing out of pocket for treatment is cheaper then insurance premiums.
I am tired of the government using a sledgehammer to put in thumb tacks.
|
|
|
Post by Half-Tard on Jul 2, 2012 12:07:08 GMT -5
you can always go to Costa Rico with Rush..
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Jul 2, 2012 12:11:47 GMT -5
...and take advantage of their (socialistic) universal health care.
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on Jul 2, 2012 12:16:04 GMT -5
You misunderstood my statement. I meant nothing changes in my world (after all it is all about me). There are already laws making me buy insurance. Especially since I have insurance through my employer the Affordable Healthcare Act changes nothing my world.
How do you figure this law is "forced one size fits all"? Look at the actual law, not what the GOP claims it is.
|
|
|
Post by Warkitty on Jul 2, 2012 12:32:59 GMT -5
Funny how it was such a great plan when Romney dreamed it up....
|
|
osrb
Senior Forumite
Semper Fi
Mostly Harmless
Posts: 3,150
|
Post by osrb on Jul 2, 2012 12:44:07 GMT -5
Funny how it was such a great plan when Romney dreamed it up.... Never said that. It was a failure in Massachusetts and will be a failure here. Besides I am not a Rep or a Dem I will not ever vote for either of one of these scumbag organizations. Not once has the any government program ever changed a thing except made things worse.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Jul 2, 2012 15:06:17 GMT -5
Costa Rica's socialized medicine is voluntary.
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Jul 2, 2012 15:13:27 GMT -5
nope
|
|
|
Post by Half-Tard on Jul 2, 2012 15:24:31 GMT -5
Even the Military...Costa Rica is calling..
|
|
|
Post by Warkitty on Jul 2, 2012 15:36:50 GMT -5
Yeah, cuz all our roads were funded by private enterprise. That's why we pay tolls everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Jul 2, 2012 15:46:18 GMT -5
Here, go take this test and when you get eight out of the ten questions correct we can probably talk intelligently about what Obamacare really means. Personally I would preferred if this had of been done the Romney way, at the state level, but I can live with what this legislation is going to do for now. And if you need to know, I scored 10 out of 10 the first time through.
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Jul 2, 2012 16:05:21 GMT -5
10 out of 10, too.
|
|
|
Post by wheels on Jul 2, 2012 16:14:45 GMT -5
10 out of 10 here as well... and i still don't support the law.
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Jul 2, 2012 16:18:06 GMT -5
Why?
|
|
osrb
Senior Forumite
Semper Fi
Mostly Harmless
Posts: 3,150
|
Post by osrb on Jul 2, 2012 16:52:35 GMT -5
Here, go take this test and when you get eight out of the ten questions correct we can probably talk intelligently about what Obamacare really means. Personally I would preferred if this had of been done the Romney way, at the state level, but I can live with what this legislation is going to do for now. And if you need to know, I scored 10 out of 10 the first time through. So what you are saying is that we can boil down a 2500 page bill into 10 questions. Now that is stupid.
|
|