Westbrick Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 5-4 decision. Interestingly, the legislation was ruled an overreach of the Commerce Clause, but was deemed acceptable as a tax. 100% correct decision and reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popo Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I was surprised that the decided vote fell to Roberts. He should be thankful that Justices don't serve terms, because if so, he'd be out in a flash. >o< I admit that I don't pay my own insurance, and am therefore rather ignorant with regards to the more complex implications of this legislation passing. I'm interested in seeing what the rest of your guys have to think about it. :3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inactive Account Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 What's truly hilarious are the conservative types tweeting about how they're going to move to Canada because the US is becoming some sort of socialist hell. Pffff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popo Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 What's truly hilarious are the conservative types tweeting about how they're going to move to Canada because the US is becoming some sort of socialist hell. Pffff. No different then when a Republican takes office and the Democrats get mad. ;3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ϲharlie Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I think the point that Kiryn was trying to get at was that it is extremely ignorant of someone to say they want to move to a country that already has universal healthcare because the US is becoming a "socialist hell". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psych Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 What's truly hilarious are the conservative types tweeting about how they're going to move to Canada because the US is becoming some sort of socialist hell. Pffff. I saw that, and then began to laugh. There was some other comment about how Canada has none of that awful stuff we have here either, like abortion or gay marriage. So Canada is a safe haven for conservatives. :p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) http://en.wikipedia....riage_in_Canada http://en.wikipedia....rtion_in_Canada Canada: homo marriage: allowed abortion: allowed without restriction Ahh... American Conservatives prove yet again they don't belong in politics but with the crazies in the insane asylum. Edited June 28, 2012 by Daigoji Excellen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HongLei Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Only thing that worries me about this is it may just end up being a stepping stone for "I am American, I deserve a house, a car, etc. as well as healthcare". Unfortunately if laws like that were passed the precident was just set by this law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Only thing that worries me about this is it may just end up being a stepping stone for "I am American, I deserve a house, a car, etc. as well as healthcare". Unfortunately if laws like that were passed the precident was just set by this law. And is there anything actually wrong with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excellen Browning Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Only thing that worries me about this is it may just end up being a stepping stone for "I am American, I deserve a house, a car, etc. as well as healthcare". Unfortunately if laws like that were passed the precident was just set by this law. Mainland Europe would have done that first, considering how much more leftist we are in general. Not surprisingly we didn't because we have brains and use them and realize that costs way too much money. By the way the "sets a precedent for X" argument really isn't applicable until you hit at least a 30 year time scale and that's just for racial prejudice and such. changing political mindset takes hundreds of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popo Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I think the point that Kiryn was trying to get at was that it is extremely ignorant of someone to say they want to move to a country that already has universal healthcare because the US is becoming a "socialist hell". It wasn't lost on me. ;D Just trying to express my general dislike for party politics. XD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HongLei Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) And is there anything actually wrong with that. People then begin to just expect the government to cover everything for them, then we then are no longer self reliant. Then we are following the path of the Soviet Union. Isn't it great having the views of both conservatives and liberals EDIT: By the way the "sets a precedent for X" argument really isn't applicable until you hit at least a 30 year time scale and that's just for racial prejudice and such. changing political mindset takes hundreds of years. Stare Decisis applies to all court decisions, not just the racial prejudices, I'll post an example when I can think of one. Edit 2 found an example in my notes, Reynolds v US - about the Mormons and polygamy, set the Compelling interest precedent - no action = harm. This precedent was set to prevent any future religions who wanted human sacrifice, ect. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause This precedent was upheld in Wisconsin v Yoder - pulling kids out of school early for their religion is child abuse, because it robs them of potential outside of Omish community if they wanted higher schooling. No compelling interest, therefore the Omish can pull their kids out of school early, precedent upheld. These are harder to find, because no one is stupid enough to challenge a similar law to a court, for example Roe v Wade only forced Texas to fix their law, but every other state with a similar law changed as well so they could have the law how they wanted it. please don't let this comment derail the topic, I am just using an example, I don't want to argue about abortion Edited June 28, 2012 by HongLei Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasori Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) As someone from the Netherlands, it has always suprised me how big of a deal healthcare is in America. Edited June 28, 2012 by Sasori Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrick Posted June 28, 2012 Author Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Ahh... American Conservatives prove yet again they don't belong in politics but with the crazies in the insane asylum. Now now, I'm a Republican myself, so don't get testy. Most critically reflective conservatives I know (and I include myself in this group) are either indifferent to Obamacare or somewhat in favor of it, like myself. We're not all sheepish middle-Americans covered in fatrolls. Only thing that worries me about this is it may just end up being a stepping stone for "I am American, I deserve a house, a car, etc. as well as healthcare". Unfortunately if laws like that were passed the precident was just set by this law. This is incorrect. What you're thinking of is the public option, which offers basic coverage to those who can't afford private insurance; the PPACA is essentially a tax with a built-in tax exemption if you buy insurance. Besides, it's fallacious to pretend that some entitlement programs will inevitably lead to a full Entitlement Culture. Are you worried that food stamps will lead to this culture? Medicare and medicaid? Edited June 28, 2012 by Westbrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 People then begin to just expect the government to cover everything for them, then we then are no longer self reliant. Then we are following the path of the Soviet Union. Isn't it great having the views of both conservatives and liberals I love empty blanket statements. They fulfill any viewpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agro Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 As someone from the Netherlands, it has always suprised me how big of a deal healthcare is in America. I know, right? We have healthcare in Australia and everything is fine. Actually, not really, the government is kind of just handing out money to people at the moment, but that's because they're a colossal failure. Women in Parliament. What a joke. I was literally appalled when I found out that people in the US have to pay for so much out-of-pocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ein Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Teehee. I'm more amused by you guys on how you are amused by those peeps. Edited June 28, 2012 by Ein Silver Rose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ISRMMBV Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 As someone from the Netherlands, it has always suprised me how big of a deal healthcare is in America. We're only 300 years old, give us a break! We've still got kinks to work out....like, a boatload of them. At least we bothered to write down our Constitution *glowers at UK* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxas Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 The decision makes more implications about constitutionality of certain taxing powers than it does about the constitutionality of nationalized healthcare. The court chose to uphold the taxing power implied in the individual mandate, a decision which carries with it the validation of over 20 taxing powers, which according to sources I've heard on CNBC (I confess, I haven't been able to look at them myself yet) take a big hit on the middle class. At this point, we need to look beyond constitutionality issues and consider the original intent of Obamacare: to improve accessibility and affordability of health care and insurance. The individual mandate can't prove a ton of solvency on this front: arguably it places more bargaining power in the hands of insurance agencies because everyone has to buy their service, and the tax burden on the middle class raises another red flag, in my opinion. In this respect, the mandate itself doesn't really address the problem brought up by the healthcare debate itself. The house is going to vote soon (I don't know exactly when) to potentially repeal the original Act and start from scratch; I stand with this decision as it holds the potential to address the issues at the heart of the problem with our current healthcare system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrick Posted June 29, 2012 Author Share Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) The decision makes more implications about constitutionality of certain taxing powers than it does about the constitutionality of nationalized healthcare. The court chose to uphold the taxing power implied in the individual mandate, a decision which carries with it the validation of over 20 taxing powers, which according to sources I've heard on CNBC (I confess, I haven't been able to look at them myself yet) take a big hit on the middle class. At this point, we need to look beyond constitutionality issues and consider the original intent of Obamacare: to improve accessibility and affordability of health care and insurance. The individual mandate can't prove a ton of solvency on this front: arguably it places more bargaining power in the hands of insurance agencies because everyone has to buy their service, and the tax burden on the middle class raises another red flag, in my opinion. In this respect, the mandate itself doesn't really address the problem brought up by the healthcare debate itself. The house is going to vote soon (I don't know exactly when) to potentially repeal the original Act and start from scratch; I stand with this decision as it holds the potential to address the issues at the heart of the problem with our current healthcare system. Seems like you don't understand why the mandate was included in the first place. The only way to pay for those with preexisting conditions without having premiums skyrocket is to include everyone in the system to offset insurance costs. And the CBO's numbers show that the health care law not only gets an additional 37 million people insured, but also reduces total costs in the long haul. And it's rather laughable to pretend that this is going to get overturned. It needs to get through the house, a Democratically-controlled senate that can filibuster, and a presidential veto. Not happening. Edited June 29, 2012 by Westbrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenkiforecast Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 I'm honestly glad it passed. I don't understand why the Tea Party went insane since the plan was based on Massachusetts' healthcare system which was put in place during Mitt Romney's tenure as Governor. It's just party politics and that's why so many teenagers and college students are completely disillusioned with our government. Why I say I'm glad it passed? My dad is a doctor, a psychiatrist, who hears about treatments his patients request. A simple 10 minute operation in our healthcare system, without insurance, can cost up to 30,000 dollars. This is a bad thing. This plan is actually a good idea for the average American because the insurance payments will pay off for any possible operation or emergency. I can think of one that happened to me, a nerve inflammation that paralyzed half my face for two months. The day it happened, I went to the Emergency Room, and was there for about 90 minutes. Without insurance, the bill was around 2,000 dollars. Overall, this will save people money and allow them to put more into the economy. That's the main reason I agree with it. And I am astonished that it was Chief Justice Roberts who made the deciding vote. I also don't understand why people are raising a big deal about it being a "tax." *Historical Lecture mode time!* One of the reasons we abandoned the Articles of Confederation was because the Federal Government could not enforce or decide on any taxes. As a result, the government had no money and thus no power. Taxes pay for many, many things taken for granted in developed countries like our roads, libraries, police officers, and the Weather Service. They are actually necessary, and labeling them as evil just confuses me. Yes, you don't have as much money to spend but the quality of life is improved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 (edited) This is incorrect. What you're thinking of is the public option, which offers basic coverage to those who can't afford private insurance; the PPACA is essentially a tax with a built-in tax exemption if you buy insurance. Besides, it's fallacious to pretend that some entitlement programs will inevitably lead to a full Entitlement Culture. Are you worried that food stamps will lead to this culture? Medicare and medicaid? A refreshingly level-headed perspective. Are you sure you're a Republican? Edited June 29, 2012 by Othin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrick Posted June 29, 2012 Author Share Posted June 29, 2012 A refreshingly level-headed perspective. Are you sure you're a Republican? A non-dogmatic Republican. Given the current state of the party, this may well be an oxymoron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadykid Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 A non-dogmatic Republican. Given the current state of the party, this may well be an oxymoron. yep, definitely not a 2012 Republican Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenkiforecast Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 yep, definitely not a 2012 Republican I would just say not a Tea Party person. People can be Republican voters and not part of that group. Unfortunately, the minority always yells the loudest and has the most influence in political parties, and the Tea Party is a minority. A really, really, really vocal minority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.