PDA

View Full Version : Politics moves to the Supreme Court



BAMAPHIN 22
03-27-2012, 10:55 AM
Politics moves to Supreme Court – oral arguments begin on health care… Three days that will determine the legacy of a president … what, who, when, and how to watch (or listen) … Owning ‘ObamaCare’ … Santorum wins Louisiana, but then lashes out with his ‘bull%&!#’ moment … Eight days that could mean the end to the GOP primary … Another Obama hot mic moment on the international scene.http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/26/10867572-first-thoughts-court-could-determine-the-legacy-of-a-president

Dolphins9954
03-27-2012, 11:02 AM
Man I hope the Supreme Court comes through with this. Between the mandate and the new costs which are almost double than they told us. (which means they lied). We really need them to save us on this one. One thing to add. I heard Kagan help write the legal defense for Obamacare. If that's the case she should recuse herself from this ASAP.

Tetragrammaton
03-27-2012, 11:43 AM
I have seen some interesting stuff from Scalia regarding Congressional power. It seems like it might squeak by.

Dolphins9954
03-28-2012, 09:24 AM
_SiF0SWdypw

Fingers crossed.

Dogbone34
03-28-2012, 03:18 PM
we would all be better off to scrap this heap now

crazy people making crazy law is a loser all day long

jared81
03-28-2012, 03:52 PM
Man I hope the Supreme Court comes through with this. Between the mandate and the new costs which are almost double than they told us. (which means they lied). We really need them to save us on this one. One thing to add. I heard Kagan help write the legal defense for Obamacare. If that's the case she should recuse herself from this ASAP.

i hope the mandate is thrown out as much as anyone. but if kagan should recuse herself then clarence thomas should as well.

Dolphins9954
03-28-2012, 04:11 PM
i hope the mandate is thrown out as much as anyone. but if kagan should recuse herself then clarence thomas should as well.

I didn't know about Thomas. Fill me in. I would at the least by happy with the mandate getting thrown out. To me that's the part I really don't like besides the insane cost of it. I feel it's real important to liberty and the constitution that the SC comes through on that.

jared81
03-28-2012, 05:29 PM
I didn't know about Thomas. Fill me in. I would at the least by happy with the mandate getting thrown out. To me that's the part I really don't like besides the insane cost of it. I feel it's real important to liberty and the constitution that the SC comes through on that.

Because his wife is a huge tea party fanatic and has spoken out multiples times on her anti-healthcare reform stance. Any google search on this will give you the details.

Eshlemon
03-29-2012, 04:16 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-justices-appear-poised-sweep-aside-entire-224700338.html


That same split was on full display in two sessions Wednesday, with the conservative justices arguing in the morning that the entire 2,700-page statute must be invalidated in full, while the court’s liberal wing favored striking down only those sections of the law closely tied to the individual mandate. In the afternoon the conservatives attacked the constitutionality of a plan to expand Medicaid as part of the reform law.

Appears the mandate looks like a goner from both the conservatives and liberals and the arguement now over this means the entire Obamacare should be rejected. From Ginsburg the court should be "conservative" and not make Congress re-authorize everything thats the law and for the Court to go thru the law and salvage what is not attached the mandate provision vs. Scalias in which you "take the heart out of the statute the entire statute is gone." and...


At one point, Justice Scalia took issue with conducting a page-by-page review of the massive law – suggesting such a process would amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

“What happened to the Eighth Amendment,” he asked Kneedler. “Do you really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?”

The comment drew laughter in the courtroom.

Going into this I really thought this would be be upheld. But as one reporter stated quiped the Obamacare team haven't been smarter than a 5th grade with how they've seem to have screwed things up. The liberal judges seemed to be frustrated with them with Ginsbury pointing out to them one time something along the lines hey guys I thought the position for your defense was going to be so and so and WTF are you going on about now. Ain't over till it's over but Obamacare's behind and mandate way behind.

Dolphins9954
03-29-2012, 02:51 PM
GZSAdDF2bUo#!

Looking good. It's looking more and more that the mandate is toast and it's just about figuring out if the whole bill should be thrown out or not.

CedarPhin
03-29-2012, 08:54 PM
This is like Casey v. Planned Parenthood in 1992.

I don't think Obamacare's getting tossed.

CedarPhin
03-29-2012, 08:55 PM
Same, as in, not the same issue that they're being ruled on, but rather, the environment around it.

LANGER72
03-31-2012, 06:57 PM
Obama care should be "Deemed" a failure...it will amount to another historical fact from his presidency. The mandate sinks this titanic.

poornate
04-01-2012, 11:11 AM
What I don't get is this... the Republicans know that there has to be a reform, and this, what we got in the "Obamacare" deal, is what they would have crafted if they had been in the position to do so... so, doesn't it echo hollowly that there is no replacement plan coming from the Republican party? Is the immediate answer from the right to just allow things to continue to the inevitable conclusion? A nation crippled by medical costs, lacking preventative care, where a "caste" system has evolved based off of birthright and social class? Where the poor are untouchables, because the inevitable conclusion is that the uninsured and uninsurable are sentenced to death because of their status... how unimaginative.... If the mandate is removed the bill, the reforms, are worthless... people will blink in and out of the program as snapshots of their health picture deem necessary... the pool will be unsustainable, just as we, as a nation, need an answer the most...

Dolphins9954
04-01-2012, 12:02 PM
Well let's not forget Romneycare which is basically the brainchild of Obamacare. The GOP once praised Romneycare but now that it's politically advantageous are singing a different tune. For me Obamacare needs to be shut down especially the mandate part. The country was totally bamboozled by the cost of it. Many of us knew that it was going to cost more than what Obama was saying. But almost twice as much is indefensible. That's really a big deal that's getting ZERO coverage in the media. When it comes to the rising costs of healthcare. Obamacare will do about as good as Romneycare did. Which is nothing. Massachusetts still has one of the highest medical costs in the country and it continues to rise. The bill was classic Washington in my eyes. Make a bill that expands government, takes away liberty and costs dramatically more than said . While making sure our corporate buddies and top donors get hooked up big time. Corporatism 101. At least this bill has a chance to be struck down. I believe it would be a good thing for the country. If the mandate gets tossed then at least government power has been checked. Showing that it's powers aren't vast and unlimited as both sides on the aisle believe. The only problem is that Washington will have to come up with another bill that I'm sure would be horrible too minus the mandate.

Dogbone34
04-01-2012, 01:24 PM
you were sold a phoney national crisis and many of you sucked it up

politics 101

CedarPhin
04-01-2012, 06:19 PM
All a reversal will do is expedite a government public option coming online in the next decade.

LANGER72
04-01-2012, 08:16 PM
If Obamacare is gutted, which I believe it will, congress will have a big mess to clean up. All of the deals within deals to buy the votes will have to be ironed out.
The only way to fix the insurance industry is to get the lawyers out of it with tort reform and to allow people to buy insurance from any state or country. Craft the policies so that they provide what is needed for each age group. That will drive the prices down.
Forcing US citizens to buy health insurance is unconstitutional IMHO.

Tetragrammaton
04-01-2012, 10:30 PM
All a reversal will do is expedite a government public option coming online in the next decade.

David Frum wrote along these lines. The irony is that the bill was a compromise to Republicans; a public option or single payer health care would not be subject to serious judicial review.

phinfan3411
04-01-2012, 11:29 PM
David Frum wrote along these lines. The irony is that the bill was a compromise to Republicans; a public option or single payer health care would not be subject to serious judicial review.

I do not agree with this, in fact i am almost positive the way i learned there would be no single payer system was you telling us this on this forum, and you stated Obama himself took it off the table.

I later learned that Baucus was with him on this.

So while i will agree with you that the republicans are useless on this matter, that is no excuse for how Obomber acted.

I fail to see how the republicans even had to be compromised with at the time.

Tetragrammaton
04-02-2012, 09:02 AM
I do not agree with this, in fact i am almost positive the way i learned there would be no single payer system was you telling us this on this forum, and you stated Obama himself took it off the table.

I later learned that Baucus was with him on this.

So while i will agree with you that the republicans are useless on this matter, that is no excuse for how Obomber acted.

I fail to see how the republicans even had to be compromised with at the time.

Obama and the Democrats went out of their way to make a bill Republicans would like. They took single payer off the table, removed the public option after outrage, and so forth. The bill was nearly identical to the one a Republican governor passed in Massachusetts, and the Republican alternative to the health care bill Republicans suggested as they opposed President Clinton's health care plan. When Republicans said they would never pass anything put forward by the Democrats, they went with the bill they had left.

The mandate is the new foreign aid for people pretending to be angry, but if it does get thrown out, a future Democratic administration will be more bold in trying to get something more moderate passed, such as a public option or single payer.

Eshlemon
04-02-2012, 03:39 PM
Obama and the Democrats went out of their way to make a bill Republicans would like. They took single payer off the table, removed the public option after outrage, and so forth. The bill was nearly identical to the one a Republican governor passed in Massachusetts, and the Republican alternative to the health care bill Republicans suggested as they opposed President Clinton's health care plan. When Republicans said they would never pass anything put forward by the Democrats, they went with the bill they had left.

The mandate is the new foreign aid for people pretending to be angry, but if it does get thrown out, a future Democratic administration will be more bold in trying to get something more moderate passed, such as a public option or single payer.

Obama and Democrats went out out of their way to make a bill Democrats would like. They had all the party votes they needed and as Obama told Republicans you lost the elections, we won. Any comprimises over public options outrage or so forth was a compromise amoung Democrats.

Dogbone34
04-02-2012, 03:53 PM
There was no compromising on obamacare, even after massive public opposition.

It was his way or the highway.

Unless compromising is the administration selling off waivers from the mess he created.

LANGER72
04-02-2012, 07:53 PM
Why all the waivers?

If it is such a great bill, why are folks opting out?

Can the whole country opt out with a waiver?

Dolphins9954
04-02-2012, 07:54 PM
Why all the waivers?

If it is such a great bill, why are folks opting out?

Can the whole country opt out with a waiver?

You have to be a top donor for that one.

Tetragrammaton
04-02-2012, 08:28 PM
Obama and Democrats went out out of their way to make a bill Democrats would like. They had all the party votes they needed and as Obama told Republicans you lost the elections, we won. Any comprimises over public options outrage or so forth was a compromise amoung Democrats.

The administration didn't expect the apoplectic response from the far-right news media, which is why the bill is something the Republicans would love if Obama had been a member of their party. He has continually tried to reach over to them, much to his detriment.

Dolphins9954
04-02-2012, 09:12 PM
Yeah from what I remember it was democrats that had a problem with the public option too. Even though Dems controlled all the houses at the time they still had problems getting votes to pass the public option especially in the senate. Then the mandated version was created. Which tells me getting the public option to pass with the GOP controlling the house will be a lot tougher to pass than before.

Tetragrammaton
04-02-2012, 09:17 PM
Yeah from what I remember it was democrats that had a problem with the public option too. Even though Dems controlled all the houses at the time they still had problems getting votes to pass the public option especially in the senate. Then the mandated version was created. Which tells me getting the public option to pass with the GOP controlling the house will be a lot tougher to pass than before.

The Republicans kept saying "repeal and replace". Well, if the Supreme Court does repeal the bill, what are they going to replace it with? They haven't suggested anything.

Dolphins9954
04-02-2012, 09:48 PM
The Republicans kept saying "repeal and replace". Well, if the Supreme Court does repeal the bill, what are they going to replace it with? They haven't suggested anything.

A bill that's at least constitutional I would hope.

LANGER72
04-03-2012, 08:54 PM
The Republicans kept saying "repeal and replace". Well, if the Supreme Court does repeal the bill, what are they going to replace it with? They haven't suggested anything.

Why does the bill have to be replaced? The US government is not responsible for it's citizens healthcare.
But we do.

Having medicare and social security is enough. Let's make sure those programs are running efficiently and funded correctly before even discussing a larger program.

Tetragrammaton
04-03-2012, 08:58 PM
Why does the bill have to be replaced? The US government is not responsible for it's citizens healthcare.
But we do.

Having medicare and social security is enough. Let's make sure those programs are running efficiently and funded correctly before even discussing a larger program.

The Republicans said they would replace it with something.

Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are exploding in costs. Employers are going to stop offering coverage if the bill is repealed and nothing is put in its place. Doing nothing will do a number on the deficit as well.

phinfan3411
04-03-2012, 11:11 PM
The Republicans said they would replace it with something.

Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are exploding in costs. Employers are going to stop offering coverage if the bill is repealed and nothing is put in its place. Doing nothing will do a number on the deficit as well.

I have a theory, as i have spent much time thinking about this issue.

I feel separating our health insurance from our employment is a great thing to do.

I would imagine the insurance companies would want ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, do you realize how many people would drop their coverage if not provided by their place of employment?

I think this would force them to become more customer friendly, and force them to provide more affordable options for their customers, it would also force every other facet of the industry to fall in line, as they would have to start gearing up to getting cash customers in to use their products or services, but that's just me.

I feel employer provided health insurance is one of the many problems with our system.

Tetragrammaton
04-04-2012, 12:15 AM
I have a theory, as i have spent much time thinking about this issue.

I feel separating our health insurance from our employment is a great thing to do.

I would imagine the insurance companies would want ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, do you realize how many people would drop their coverage if not provided by their place of employment?

I think this would force them to become more customer friendly, and force them to provide more affordable options for their customers, it would also force every other facet of the industry to fall in line, as they would have to start gearing up to getting cash customers in to use their products or services, but that's just me.

I feel employer provided health insurance is one of the many problems with our system.

What is to stop companies from deciding to make a streamlined business model that makes their insurance very difficult to qualify for (very young and very healthy) and dropping those people the second they become unprofitable? The customer base may shrink dramatically, but profits per person could skyrocket.

LouPhinFan
04-04-2012, 06:54 AM
What is to stop companies from deciding to make a streamlined business model that makes their insurance very difficult to qualify for (very young and very healthy) and dropping those people the second they become unprofitable? The customer base may shrink dramatically, but profits per person could skyrocket.

Because it's against the law to drop someone like that. They would just raise insurance premiums.

This health law was a mess from the beginning. All they had to do was put out a federal mandate to outlaw preexisting conditions. That would have made alot of people happy. All insurance polices, regardless of whom they're through, have to follow federal laws and mandates. Even the self-funded policies out there. Self-funded polices don't have to follow state laws but they do have follow federal ones.

I work for a health insurance company. I know how most of the system works. phinfan3411 is on the money. Health insurance should be separated from the employer and then opened up across state lines. Let people shop for their polices just like they do a car, that will reduce the price. If someone really wants a government plan, then I have an idea for that. If any of you want to know it just ask. It's a little long to get into with the explaination. I don't want to get into if no one really cares to hear it.

LANGER72
04-04-2012, 11:03 AM
The Republicans said they would replace it with something.

Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are exploding in costs. Employers are going to stop offering coverage if the bill is repealed and nothing is put in its place. Doing nothing will do a number on the deficit as well.

If the bill is repealed, how would that make the deficit worse? You lost me on that one.
Employers will stop offering coverage if the bill is not repealed or gutted and left to rot.

Regarding replacing it, it cannot be afforded in our current financial state of affairs. There needs to be budget cuts across the board, elimination of wasteful programs that are frankly luxury items, slimming regulating agencies that create red tape, cutting off foreign aid to some countries, and increased taxes for some.

Tetragrammaton
04-04-2012, 11:43 AM
If the bill is repealed, how would that make the deficit worse? You lost me on that one.
Employers will stop offering coverage if the bill is not repealed or gutted and left to rot.

Regarding replacing it, it cannot be afforded in our current financial state of affairs. There needs to be budget cuts across the board, elimination of wasteful programs that are frankly luxury items, slimming regulating agencies that create red tape, cutting off foreign aid to some countries, and increased taxes for some.

The bill decreases the deficit over ten years. Every CBO projection shows this.

phinfan3411
04-04-2012, 12:06 PM
Because it's against the law to drop someone like that. They would just raise insurance premiums.

This health law was a mess from the beginning. All they had to do was put out a federal mandate to outlaw preexisting conditions. That would have made alot of people happy. All insurance polices, regardless of whom they're through, have to follow federal laws and mandates. Even the self-funded policies out there. Self-funded polices don't have to follow state laws but they do have follow federal ones.

I work for a health insurance company. I know how most of the system works. phinfan3411 is on the money. Health insurance should be separated from the employer and then opened up across state lines. Let people shop for their polices just like they do a car, that will reduce the price. If someone really wants a government plan, then I have an idea for that. If any of you want to know it just ask. It's a little long to get into with the explaination. I don't want to get into if no one really cares to hear it.

I would like to hear your ideas.

jared81
04-04-2012, 02:44 PM
The Republicans said they would replace it with something.

Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are exploding in costs. Employers are going to stop offering coverage if the bill is repealed and nothing is put in its place. Doing nothing will do a number on the deficit as well.


i work with business owners all day everyday. and every type of business, whether it be minority, white and every industry is afraid of what this healthcare reform will do to their bottom line. i think alot of people asume that most businesses are huge corporations, when in fact they are small businesses rangeing from 1-50 employees. most of these businesses survive week to week. what will happen in a couple of years when they are required to provide healthcare?

RockyMtnPhinfan
04-04-2012, 03:14 PM
Healthcare costs are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in America.
The problem is that people that are paying for insurance are paying for those who do not pay for their insurance. The **** does not grow on tress. I work in the medical field and see and deal with patient bills on a daily basis. It's ridiculous how much things cost in the medical world. Insurance companies are pure evil and they are the folks making choices about your tests and if they are covered or not, and that is wrong.
I, for one, hope that they uphold the Healthcare reform.

---------- Post added at 01:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:12 PM ----------


i work with business owners all day everyday. and every type of business, whether it be minority, white and every industry is afraid of what this healthcare reform will do to their bottom line. i think alot of people asume that most businesses are huge corporations, when in fact they are small businesses rangeing from 1-50 employees. most of these businesses survive week to week. what will happen in a couple of years when they are required to provide healthcare?
There is an opt-out option for small businesses. It may cost a one time fee to opt out, but for a small business it would be much cheaper than paying for coverage.

LouPhinFan
04-04-2012, 10:15 PM
I would like to hear your ideas.

I'll gather my thoughts together on it and make a thread here sometime within the next week or so. It's going to be a doozie and require some reading on everyone's part.

LANGER72
04-05-2012, 06:35 PM
The bill decreases the deficit over ten years. Every CBO projection shows this.


The CBO is looking into a crystal ball. Their projections are always wrong. Also, they often exclude certain items.
The bill is bad. CBO assurances are not worth the paper they could be printed on.

jguig
04-12-2012, 12:01 AM
Kagan actually argued in court for the law. She has exposed her vested interest and her bias.

Has Thomas argued against this in a court? I don't know of any such activity. Please advise.

jguig
04-12-2012, 12:05 AM
You believed the lie you were fed.


The projection was indeed based on 10 years. Of the ten year window under consideration was the first 4 years where there were NO expenditures coupled with 4 years of tax revenues to support it. Therefore the final calculation was 10 years of tax revenues to 6 years of projected expenditures.

The formula was indeed slanted to provide the outcome that the President wanted. They truthfully gave your an answer that it did not increase the deficit based on that faulty skewed equation. When you match year by year with revenue to expenses, the outcome changes drastically. That's what they don't want you to know.

jguig
04-12-2012, 12:07 AM
The bill decreases the deficit over ten years. Every CBO projection shows this.

You believed the lie you were fed.


The projection was indeed based on 10 years. Of the ten year window under consideration was the first 4 years where there were NO expenditures coupled with 4 years of tax revenues to support it. Therefore the final calculation was 10 years of tax revenues to 6 years of projected expenditures.

The formula was indeed slanted to provide the outcome that the President wanted. They truthfully gave your an answer that it did not increase the deficit based on that faulty skewed equation. When you match year by year with revenue to expenses, the outcome changes drastically. That's what they don't want you to know.