Page 1 of 23  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 23 Next
Switch to Forum Live View
Locked: Supreme Court Upholds "Obamacare"
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 11:04AM #1
Ebon
Posts: 10,148

In a dramatic victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court upheld the 2010 health care law Thursday, preserving Obama’s landmark legislative achievement.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who held that the law was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to tax.



The rest at the link:


nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/...
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 11:09AM #2
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

Well, what do you know... maybe Obama isn't a radical socialist/communist/secret Muslim/America-hating/hippy/Marxist after all. 



(And in other breaking news, Rush Limbaugh just shit his pants...)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 11:12AM #3
Ebon
Posts: 10,148

I would so love to be a fly on Rush's wall right now. I hear Glenn Beck had to double his dosage of Xanax.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 11:17AM #4
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,717

As I said on the Pol board, Wingoism, ever since going wingy over Iraq, is in continual meltdown stage, at this juncture.  If "Death panels for Grandma." as a Wingomeme weren't persuasive, then it will have to be "God strike the Court dead.  And soon."


I mean, who wants a nation with healthcare, anyway. 

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 11:23AM #5
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,393

Well Obama said it wasn't a tax at least until he needed it to be a tax to win. The insurance companies are happy, they'll be making a lot more money now.


What could hurt is the ruling they made on the medicaid expansion--that the federal gov't cannot withhold funds from states that refuse to comply.

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 11:32AM #6
Ebon
Posts: 10,148

Jun 28, 2012 -- 11:23AM, Girlchristian wrote:

Well Obama said it wasn't a tax at least until he needed it to be a tax to win. The insurance companies are happy, they'll be making a lot more money now.



Personally, I think the Chief Justice is out of his f'ing mind to pretend that the Commerce Clause doesn't apply but never mind.


What could hurt is the ruling they made on the medicaid expansion--that the federal gov't cannot withhold funds from states that refuse to comply.



It's the USA. The poor should be used to getting screwed by now.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 11:49AM #7
Nepenthe
Posts: 2,720

Jun 28, 2012 -- 11:32AM, Ebon wrote:

Personally, I think the Chief Justice is out of his f'ing mind to pretend that the Commerce Clause doesn't apply but never mind.



Not buying medical insurance is not engaging in commerce among the states, so I don't see how the commerce cause would apply.  But then, I do not want to give the federal government unlimited power over our lives, which is what wouldhave happened. 


Even the conservative members of SCOTUS have held that activity that is not commerce among the states can be regulated by the commerce clause (Gonzales v. Raich ), so if they had ruled that inactivity could also be regulated by the commerce clause, then the power of the legislative branch would have been absolute.

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 11:49AM #8
TemplarS
Posts: 6,868

The Medicaid provision could easily be fixed, as I understand it, but that will not happen as the Republicans have no interest in making the law work. Obviously they are not interested in Medicaid one bit, either.


But this is only the first step in overhauling the health care system. It fixes the huge gaps in insurance coverage and corrects some of the most egregious practices of the health insurers.


But the outrageous costs associated with health care in the US still need to be addressed. 


It would be nice to see both sides now move on to try to address this.  But they won't.  The Democrats might be motivated, but the Republicans have no interest in doing anything but trying to roll back the law.  Which, since it will not happen, is an exercise in futility.  But it will make for good politicking on the right.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 11:55AM #9
Ebon
Posts: 10,148

Jun 28, 2012 -- 11:49AM, Nepenthe wrote:

Not buying medical insurance is not engaging in commerce among the states, so I don;t see how the commerce cause would apply.



But the ACA commands everyone buy health insurance (albeit, with some subsidies). That means that everyone doing so is engaging in commerce, probably across state lines and thus, the Commerce Clause.


But then, I do not want to give the federal government unlimited power over our lives, which is what wouldhave happened. 



Ridiculous fear-mongering.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 12:19PM #10
TemplarS
Posts: 6,868

Jun 28, 2012 -- 11:49AM, Nepenthe wrote:


  But then, I do not want to give the federal government unlimited power over our lives, which is what wouldhave happened. 





I don't either.


But then again- in health care, as a practical matter,  for all but the very rich or the very healthy, the status quo is that the health insurance companies have unlimited power over this aspect of our lives anyway.  What's the difference?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 23  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 23 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook