What if Obamacare is voted down by the Supreme Court?

bravo said:
You can't have it both ways.....

If the Republicans were removed from the final decisions, then Obama could and did whatever he wanted to do.....the Republicans had no say, and no part in it....they didn't prevent anything....
Click to expand...

They were part of the discussions involving a government option. Parts of the plan were discussed with Repubs prior to having to remove them from further discussions.
 
apple0154 said:
Nothing strange considering Palin talking about death panels and others saying how people in countries with government medical are suffering when statistics show countries with government medical have as long or longer life expectancy.

How many citizens actually researched government medical? Isn't it strange how the numbers in opposition have dropped since parts of the plan have taken effect and the plan has been talked about more?
Click to expand...
It's a completely obtuse argument from the opponents. Those with a vested financial interest in the current status quo have been using fear tactics to scare people into thinking that they are going to be losing access to health care or that these reforms will make them unafordable in one respect or another.

The problem is, and you're absolutely correct here, is that if one takes the time to understand how other modern, industrialized, capitalist nations have reformed their health care systems and have substantially reduced costs and improved outcomes, then one has to put on their objective hat and consider, maybe we ought to implement these fundamental reforms to our system too?

The whole "socialism" fear tactic is a canard that drives me up a wall. Hell a good majority of our health care system is all ready publiclly owned or financed. There's a huge difference between government being involved in health care to assure that our system is stable, available and affordable to all and provided basic and life saving care versus government running ALL of our health care system, which is what a socialist system would truly be. We need government as a partner in our health care system to stabilize it, improve cost controls, assure access and improve outcomes. Only government has the resources necessary to solve problems as large as these. If the free market could do it, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
 
Derp Derp said:
It's a completely obtuse argument from the opponents. Those with a vested financial interest in the current status quo have been using fear tactics to scare people into thinking that they are going to be losing access to health care or that these reforms will make them unafordable in one respect or another.

The problem is, and you're absolutely correct here, is that if one takes the time to understand how other modern, industrialized, capitalist nations have reformed their health care systems and have substantially reduced costs and improved outcomes, then one has to put on their objective hat and consider, maybe we ought to implement these fundamental reforms to our system too?

The whole "socialism" fear tactic is a canard that drives me up a wall. Hell a good majority of our health care system is all ready publiclly owned or financed. There's a huge difference between government being involved in health care to assure that our system is stable, available and affordable to all and provided basic and life saving care versus government running ALL of our health care system, which is what a socialist system would truly be. We need government as a partner in our health care system to stabilize it, improve cost controls, assure access and improve outcomes. Only government has the resources necessary to solve problems as large as these. If the free market could do it, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Click to expand...

What I find strange is there is not ONE country opponents can point to as an example where government medical failed and reverted to the "pay or suffer" system like what is presently in place in the US. The evidence is overwhelming that government involvement in the medical system works better regardless of what plan is in place. Whether it's a full one payer plan, a co-pay plan or any combination thereof the evidence shows virtually any government system is preferable to the current US system. When people talk about US exceptionalism it would, indeed, be exceptional if a US government plan was found to be inferior to the current system. :lol:

Re: "If the free market could do it, we wouldn't even be having this discussion." that's the obvious point opponents to government medical continually rebuff. My take on it is the Right/Conservatives don't want any type of medical that covers everyone. No one can honestly believe the free market system can deal with the problem considering it has been discussed for generations. Dozens of countries have dealt with the problem and the only way it can be dealt with is having the government involved.

The US has dozens of examples to draw from. Pick any one of them and start from there. They're all, fundamentally, the same with each one specifically tailored or fine tuned to fit the population and geographics. Large and small populations. Large and small land mass. Poor and wealthy countries. Every possibility has been dealt with.

My feeling is Obama will win the election and regardless of the Supreme Court ruling some type of universal plan will be implemented. The opponents, by fighting reasonable change, will end up losing all.
 
IT seems to me, after hearing a lot of yesterdays arguments, that the question becomes... Will they strike down the entire Bill, or will they only strike the mandate.

If they strike the mandate, Congress should respond with a public option.

President Obama might be able to turn this into a posative and run his campaign as an argument about fighting back, against the Supreme Court of Citizens United, and health care fame. He could possably turn the conversation from the econmy to one about the corporate take over of the United States. Romney has already played into his hands on this one by defending Citizens United and saying that a corporation is a person. I wonder if the Supreme Court striking the Health Care Bill might just give President Obama's reelection campaign a boost.
 
Jarod said:
IT seems to me, after hearing a lot of yesterdays arguments, that the question becomes... Will they strike down the entire Bill, or will they only strike the mandate.

If they strike the mandate, Congress should respond with a public option.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't think it is at all sensible to project what the Court is going to do based on oral argument. But, assuming you are right, in order to get a public option at any time in the next 4 years, Obama would have to win, the Democrats would have to take 63 or so seats in the Senate and a large enough majority in the House to make the Blue Dogs irrelevant.


Jarod said:
President Obama might be able to turn this into a posative and run his campaign as an argument about fighting back, against the Supreme Court of Citizens United, and health care fame. He could possably turn the conversation from the econmy to one about the corporate take over of the United States. Romney has already played into his hands on this one by defending Citizens United and saying that a corporation is a person. I wonder if the Supreme Court striking the Health Care Bill might just give President Obama's reelection campaign a boost.
Click to expand...

Not sure how all that would shake out. Call me crazy, but I don't think having his signature accomplishment struck down would be a positive thing.
 
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...

The difference is that the mandate for car insurance is for two things... to protect the lender (if you have a loan) and to protect other people (note I used bold since caps sends liberals into a frenzy proclaiming someone is angry).
 
Rana said:
Oh, this is exaggeration, yes it could happen, but what is the likelihood. Right now they control drugs and food to a certain extent, anyway.
Click to expand...

One of the largest drivers of health care costs is increasing obesity rates in this country. Why would they not mandate gym memberships or healthy foods? Is that not also for the greater benefit of society and would it not also lower the costs to the country for health care?

I am a strong proponent for promoting healthy eating and exercise, but in no way should it ever be mandated by the government.
 
Jarod said:
IT seems to me, after hearing a lot of yesterdays arguments, that the question becomes... Will they strike down the entire Bill, or will they only strike the mandate.

If they strike the mandate, Congress should respond with a public option.

President Obama might be able to turn this into a posative and run his campaign as an argument about fighting back, against the Supreme Court of Citizens United, and health care fame. He could possably turn the conversation from the econmy to one about the corporate take over of the United States. Romney has already played into his hands on this one by defending Citizens United and saying that a corporation is a person. I wonder if the Supreme Court striking the Health Care Bill might just give President Obama's reelection campaign a boost.
Click to expand...
Aren't you assuming that they will strike down the mandate? I wouldn't make that assumption. There's a good chance that the mandate may stand or require revision in some fashion.
 
Superfreak said:
One of the largest drivers of health care costs is increasing obesity rates in this country. Why would they not mandate gym memberships or healthy foods? Is that not also for the greater benefit of society and would it not also lower the costs to the country for health care?

I am a strong proponent for promoting healthy eating and exercise, but in no way should it ever be mandated by the government.
Click to expand...
They do in a manner of speaking. There are regulations in place about the use of products like trans fats and high fructose corn syrup in our foods. There are also restrictions to other consumer goods that are potentially dangerous to ones health. Tobacco and alcohol for example.
 
Jarod said:
IT seems to me, after hearing a lot of yesterdays arguments, that the question becomes... Will they strike down the entire Bill, or will they only strike the mandate.

If they strike the mandate, Congress should respond with a public option.

President Obama might be able to turn this into a posative and run his campaign as an argument about fighting back, against the Supreme Court of Citizens United, and health care fame. He could possably turn the conversation from the econmy to one about the corporate take over of the United States. Romney has already played into his hands on this one by defending Citizens United and saying that a corporation is a person. I wonder if the Supreme Court striking the Health Care Bill might just give President Obama's reelection campaign a boost.
Click to expand...
I serously doubt that would happen if Obama gets a second term. Such a change would require a whole sale change in the composition of SCOTUS and that would take a generation of Democrats controlling the White House for that to happen.
 
Superfreak said:
The difference is that the mandate for car insurance is for two things... to protect the lender (if you have a loan) and to protect other people (note I used bold since caps sends liberals into a frenzy proclaiming someone is angry).
Click to expand...
You're simply wrong. A mandate for health insurance would do the exact same thing. That is what insurance does!
 
SmarterThanYou said:
translation: make everyone pay more money for something they may or may not use, so those that do use it can have it cheaper.
Click to expand...

The funniest part of Mutt's comment is that a mandate does nothing (note liberals, I took the time to bold it for emphasis rather than using caps... we do want to keep those panties unbunched) to lower costs. Yet he proclaims it is the most 'affective' way. It does nothing to address the cause of rising costs. The only way that a mandate can lower costs is if you have Snyderman in charge of telling us who is deserving of what medical procedures. Because clearly she wants to be the judge for what is best for each individual.
 
Cynic said:
i actually prefer a straight single payer system to what is currently being proposed. If you are going to have government up your anus then they may as well love you tender. Something really irks me about being forced to purchase a product, and I believe it sets a bad precedent.

Honestly I wish it was just a state issue and we could let the poor states die off and be obliterated. It's too hard to corral 300 million people.
Click to expand...

You could always start another "War on Drugs" type government ass rape that lets them throw people in jail for 'offenses' that bring no harm to others. Cheap government labor.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Again, I don't think it is at all sensible to project what the Court is going to do based on oral argument. But, assuming you are right, in order to get a public option at any time in the next 4 years, Obama would have to win, the Democrats would have to take 63 or so seats in the Senate and a large enough majority in the House to make the Blue Dogs irrelevant.




Not sure how all that would shake out. Call me crazy, but I don't think having his signature accomplishment struck down would be a positive thing.
Click to expand...

ITs called backlash. Kinda like how popular President Clinton was when they impeached him.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
it sounds like the court will at least strike down the mandate, which is a damn fine thing. the uproar in this country over being forced to purchase a product or service would have torn it apart.
Click to expand...

The uproar over the president being able to declare an american an enemy combatent and hold them without due process or assinate them without a conviction should have torn the country apart. Sorry, but we are sheep under jackbooted heels at this point, and an insurance mandate is hardly an issue even worth talking about in these terms.
 
Rune said:
The uproar over the president being able to declare an american an enemy combatent and hold them without due process or assinate them without a conviction should have torn the country apart. Sorry, but we are sheep under jackbooted heels at this point, and an insurance mandate is hardly an issue even worth talking about in these terms.
Click to expand...
you sadly are correct in one respect, and wrong in another. 'sheeple' don't much care about the enemy combatant or assassination issue because they ignorantly think 'it can't happen to me', therefore it doesn't concern them too much. fuck with their money though, and people will take notice.
 
Superfreak said:
The funniest part of Mutt's comment is that a mandate does nothing (note liberals, I took the time to bold it for emphasis rather than using caps... we do want to keep those panties unbunched) to lower costs. Yet he proclaims it is the most 'affective' way. It does nothing to address the cause of rising costs. The only way that a mandate can lower costs is if you have Snyderman in charge of telling us who is deserving of what medical procedures. Because clearly she wants to be the judge for what is best for each individual.
Click to expand...
Math isn't your thing is it Tinkerbell? Holy shit, having everyone sharing the cost of health care by paying insurance would substantially reduce cost for everyone. What an incredibly stupid thing to say! LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top