What if Obamacare is voted down by the Supreme Court?

Derp Derp said:
Ehhh wrong. Apples and Oranges. Not EVERYONE enters into the cell phone market. EVERYONE enters into the health care market. Not a valid comparison.
Click to expand...
no, everyone does NOT enter the health care market, and it's also just as possible that people enter the police services or fire services market. so your 'apples and oranges' just became apples and apples.

Derp Derp said:
It's foolish trying to play the guessing game on how SCOTUS would rule. Precedence is clearly in favor of their upholding the constitutionality of the universal mandate. Just precedence was clearly in favor of SCOTUS ruling against Citizens United but they didn't rule against Citizens United, did they?
Click to expand...
what would you know about precedent? I can point out some cases where the precedent also states that the feds can't force people or the states to do something.
 
The first fact of life......Our healthcare system DOES NOT NEED TO BE OVERHAULED.......

and the even more important fact of life......Obamacare is OBVIOUSLY unConstitutional and if the SCOTUS looses sight of that .... we're fucked.....
 
bravo said:
The first fact of life......Our healthcare system DOES NOT NEED TO BE OVERHAULED.......

and the even more important fact of life......Obamacare is OBVIOUSLY unConstitutional and if the SCOTUS looses sight of that .... we're fucked.....
Click to expand...

YES IT DOES!

Can you hear me now?

That's the problem, he can't hear, just type in caps!
 
bravo said:
The first fact of life......Our healthcare system DOES NOT NEED TO BE OVERHAULED.......

and the even more important fact of life......Obamacare is OBVIOUSLY unConstitutional and if the SCOTUS looses sight of that .... we're fucked.....
Click to expand...

Look at the annual price increases we are facing in healthcare costs. They are unsustainable. I think the system definitely needs reform or overhaul. The issue is how do we do it.
 
Carlos Spicy Weiner said:
You're forgetting Kelo. :cof1:
Click to expand...
No I'm not. Kelo was bad, no doubt about that, but it doesn't have the potential to undermine the American Political process like Citizens United potentially can and Dred Scott did. The Kelo decision has been affectively limited by most States changing their eminent domain laws so that they can't be used for economic development except in the case of urban blight.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
no, everyone does NOT enter the health care market, and it's also just as possible that people enter the police services or fire services market. so your 'apples and oranges' just became apples and apples.

what would you know about precedent? I can point out some cases where the precedent also states that the feds can't force people or the states to do something.
Click to expand...

Ehh wrongo bucko, either at birth, some point in the journey of life or in death all people at one point or time enter the health care market and those who don't carry insurance who do enter into the health care market inevitably are subsidized by those who do pay insurance, now bring into that the fact that around 75% of hospitals and clinics in our nation are publicaly funded and you have ample rational and a constitutional basis for supporting the PPACA whether you like that fact or not.

Not that this is relevent. SCOTUS can rule either way or some where in between. Currently groups of legal professionals are betting that there's an 85% chance that the universal mandate will pass constitutional muster.

Which as I've stated earlier means absolutely squat as you are correct. There is precedent in the opposite direction. The main two factors in the PPACA which SCOTUS needs to adjudicate are the constitutionality of the universal mandate and what the intent of congress was when creating this legislation.
 
bravo said:
The first fact of life......Our healthcare system DOES NOT NEED TO BE OVERHAULED.......

and the even more important fact of life......Obamacare is OBVIOUSLY unConstitutional and if the SCOTUS looses sight of that .... we're fucked.....
Click to expand...
How the hell can you say something so incredibly stupid? We have 50 million people who are not insured. Those people cause the rest of us a TON of money when they do get sick or hurt cause we end up paying for their health care anyways. Usually in the much more expensive emergency room or when a disease has reached an advanced and more costly state to treat. That also flies in the fact that we spend nearly twice as much per capita as any nation on earth to achieve third world outcomes. Only a blythering idiot could make such a statement. We can't continue to spend what will soon be 20% of GDP (and growing) on health care. Our system is broke and it needs fixed fast before it brings down the rest of our economy.
 
Derp Derp said:
So how do you reform our HC system with out a universal mandate? Considering that is what all the modern industrialized nations of the world do?
Click to expand...

Well, you can actually work on the issue of cost rather than simply pretend that is handled by ordering people to do what you want them to. Or you could amend the constitution to allow the nanny state to take over every important decision of your life.
 
cawacko said:
Look at the annual price increases we are facing in healthcare costs. They are unsustainable. I think the system definitely needs reform or overhaul. The issue is how do we do it.
Click to expand...
Exactly! The next question what methods did other industrialized nations use to reform there health care systems to make them more cost affective and produce superior outcomes? There are three that all modern industrial nations have implemented. #1. A universal mandate. #2. A single payer system and #3 Cost controls.

The US will almost surely follow their lead and implement those three principles of HC reform based on the fact that they work.
 
Damocles said:
Well, you can actually work on the issue of cost rather than simply pretend that is handled by ordering people to do what you want them to. Or you could amend the constitution to allow the nanny state to take over every important decision of your life.
Click to expand...
Good idea....and what's one of the most affective way to manage cost? A universal mandate. Cost controls will certainly be a part of HC reform. Your last statement was utter non-sense.

The rest of the modern world has implemented these principles. They work! Why shouldn't we do the same? I'm helping to pay for those 50 million people who can't afford or don't carry insurance anyways and that's a big part of the problem. If those people start paying then my cost go down and the quality and scope of my coverage improves cause I don't have to subsidize these freeloaders anymore.
 
Derp Derp said:
No I'm not. Kelo was bad, no doubt about that, but it doesn't have the potential to undermine the American Political process like Citizens United potentially can and Dred Scott did. The Kelo decision has been affectively limited by most States changing their eminent domain laws so that they can't be used for economic development except in the case of urban blight.
Click to expand...

That was partly sarcasm, as we were skipping over obvious monstrosities such as Plessey and Roe. As for Citizens United, McCain-Feingold was a notoriously retarded law to begin with, so I don't have a lot a sympathy for people who are upset with seeing it struck down...
 
Derp Derp said:
Good idea....and what's one of the most affective way to manage cost? A universal mandate. Cost controls will certainly be a part of HC reform. Your last statement was utter non-sense.

The rest of the modern world has implemented these principles. They work! Why shouldn't we do the same? I'm helping to pay for those 50 million people who can't afford or don't carry insurance anyways and that's a big part of the problem. If those people start paying then my cost go down and the quality and scope of my coverage improves cause I don't have to subsidize these freeloaders anymore.
Click to expand...

That doesn't manage cost, it simply tucks it under a rug and lets you pretend that the rich are being fleeced to pay for you.
 
Don Quixote said:
like mittens, the reps were for obama care/national health insurance before they were against it

it will be a dark day for the u s if it is struck down
Click to expand...

contrary to mouthbreather opinion, the supreme courts job isn't to make feel good laws that unite the nation in a hand holding ceremony. They are there to uphold the constitution.

If you grant the government the power to explicitly tell you what to buy, the government could mandate you buy a certain car, or certain foods. It's entirely fucking buillshit.
 
cawacko said:
Look at the annual price increases we are facing in healthcare costs. They are unsustainable. I think the system definitely needs reform or overhaul. The issue is how do we do it.
Click to expand...

Can you THINK for a minute....why.....why does something like healthcare cost so much.....and why does a humongous flat screen TV cost so little....

The answer is quite simple.....
 
Derp Derp said:
Shows what you know. Since EVERYONE willl at one time or another become a health care consumer then such a mandate falls well into Constitutionality under the commerce clause. The odds of that being struck down on a constitutional basis are pretty much a long shot.
Click to expand...

your avatar suits you well.
 
Cynic said:
contrary to mouthbreather opinion, the supreme courts job isn't to make feel good laws that unite the nation in a hand holding ceremony. They are there to uphold the constitution.

If you grant the government the power to explicitly tell you what to buy, the government could mandate you buy a certain car, or certain foods. It's entirely fucking buillshit.
Click to expand...

They mandate I buy car insurance if I wnt to drive, so why not health insurance if I want to receive healthcare?
 
Damocles said:
Even more ironic. IMO, if they had included the government option I don't think it would be unconstitutional. It's the "you buy this or else" that is causing all the issues.
Click to expand...

I don't think the public option would have changed the analysis. Still forcing people to buy insurance, just giving them the option to buy it from the government.
 
Rana said:
They mandate I buy car insurance if I wnt to drive, so why not health insurance if I want to receive healthcare?
Click to expand...

if you WANT to drive.

Maybe you can commute by train and don't need to.

This is equivalent to forcing you to buy car insurance, even if you don't own a car or plan on driving.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top