- Joined
- Dec 8, 2013
- Messages
- 17,206
- Reaction score
- 33,751
Antifa are just protesters trying to stop hate speech.
Law Federal judge in Texas strikes down ObamaCare
- Thread starter Whippy McGee
- Start date
I'm not surprised that Obamacare has been unpopular. It was mistake prone in the beginning. It was advertised to help keep costs down, which for around 20% if I recall corrently that didn't happen. I believe around 80% received government subsidies to keep costs lower. The other 20%, I believe, not receiving government payments were seeing sky high insurance costs, with monthly costs sometimes being $2000.00 a month with deductibles up to $6000.00.
For what ever reason President Obama didn't want to lower medical costs, according to his adviser Dr. Emanual. I think that ended up being a big error, as it opened up Obamacare to a large group of Americans to continually criticize it, along with many people beginning to be critical of our pricy medical system.
Imagine that isn't the end. More change is coming. Our current medical system is ridiculous in my opinion.
For what ever reason President Obama didn't want to lower medical costs, according to his adviser Dr. Emanual. I think that ended up being a big error, as it opened up Obamacare to a large group of Americans to continually criticize it, along with many people beginning to be critical of our pricy medical system.
Imagine that isn't the end. More change is coming. Our current medical system is ridiculous in my opinion.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 45,244
- Reaction score
- 6,619
That came to mind immediately lol. But I want to know what the "unconstitutional" part of this is. The article didn't really explain, it just gave the reason of "Obamacare doesn't work without the mandate" which is something we already knew. That doesn't have anything to do with the Constitution. Engineering its failure was a chickenshit move by the GOP, but is there an actual case for it being unconstitutional now?
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2006
- Messages
- 10,798
- Reaction score
- 1
The Mandate Penalty violated Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. As I described earlier.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 39,109
- Reaction score
- 9,764
You guys seem quite happy to go back into the Hilary Clinton hmo racket we had before the ACA, with half of the citizenry's bankruptcies coming from healthcare costs.
Seeing as the Republicans, after 8 years, have nothing to put in it's place, just fuck it then, right?
Seeing as the Republicans, after 8 years, have nothing to put in it's place, just fuck it then, right?
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 45,244
- Reaction score
- 6,619
You hadn't even posted itt yet, and that doesn't tell me anything about the arguments.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2006
- Messages
- 10,798
- Reaction score
- 1
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 45,244
- Reaction score
- 6,619
hmm, I'll wait for saner people. Thanks though lol.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 2,910
- Reaction score
- 528
Neither the Republicans, nor Corporate Democrats have an answer. Because both parties are so corrupted with lobby money from healthcare, insurance, and pharma firms that it's impossible to get anything comprehensive done.
Fuck, that ACA was practically written by lobbyist lawyers and handed to the DNC to pass.
Obama, Pelosi, and Schumer had no clue what was REALLY in it when they passed the legislation.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 39,109
- Reaction score
- 9,764
They didn't know what was in it? They debated with Republicans over every line of the law for A YEAR.
The Democrats passed the ACA, that was their answer.
I hear that healthcare is gonna be so easy to fix though.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2006
- Messages
- 10,798
- Reaction score
- 1
Or you could be a grown-up and thank me for providing a clear answer to your question.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2006
- Messages
- 10,798
- Reaction score
- 1
For everyone else, just some general info based on a brief review of all this nonsense.
The Obama Administration's own original argument was unconstitutional, saying that it WAS a penalty AND that it was okay because of their power to tax. The Supreme Court told them otherwise, for apparently the same reasons I said, but for god-knows-what reason, helped them fudge their own argument to say that it WASN'T forcing people to buy health care since the price wasn't higher than the what the premium would generally be. However, of course, the tax INCREASED every year specifically so that it WOULD become more expensive.
On top of that, Obama himself told people that he wouldn't raise their taxes (and Jonathan Gruber said that the bill wouldn't pass as taxes), so they said one thing to get it past people and then contradicted themselves to get the Supreme Court to pass it.
Taxes don't function like the criminal justice system. They're not passed, investigated, controlled etc in the same way criminal laws and penalties are. That's why this line is drawn between taxes as a way to fund government and taxes as a way to punish citizens.
Now hopefully, we all have better things to do than to spend more time on this.
The Obama Administration's own original argument was unconstitutional, saying that it WAS a penalty AND that it was okay because of their power to tax. The Supreme Court told them otherwise, for apparently the same reasons I said, but for god-knows-what reason, helped them fudge their own argument to say that it WASN'T forcing people to buy health care since the price wasn't higher than the what the premium would generally be. However, of course, the tax INCREASED every year specifically so that it WOULD become more expensive.
On top of that, Obama himself told people that he wouldn't raise their taxes (and Jonathan Gruber said that the bill wouldn't pass as taxes), so they said one thing to get it past people and then contradicted themselves to get the Supreme Court to pass it.
Taxes don't function like the criminal justice system. They're not passed, investigated, controlled etc in the same way criminal laws and penalties are. That's why this line is drawn between taxes as a way to fund government and taxes as a way to punish citizens.
Now hopefully, we all have better things to do than to spend more time on this.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2003
- Messages
- 30,452
- Reaction score
- 1,649
Anything that helps poor people is unconstitutional.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2012
- Messages
- 52,178
- Reaction score
- 9,592
Roberts' opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius (Obamacare Supreme Court case) is still one of my favorite opinions of all-time, precisely because of the nuanced chaos it left us with. It really is fascinating and it reveals a lot about how constitutional law actually operates. A portion of my answer to a 1L ConLaw final exam question:
Chances are if you were a US citizen in 2012, Chief Justice John Roberts either angered or confounded you with his judgment in NFIB v. Sebelius. Upon first read, it appears that Roberts is wildly inconsistent (some would say incompetent), especially given the force of dissent from Ginsburg on the Commerce Clause issue and Scalia on the Tax Power issue. I found both Ginsburg and Scalia’s dissenting arguments more legally (constitutionally) persuasive than anything put forth by Roberts, however I would’ve concurred with Roberts. Probably not what a 1L should be revealing on his Con Law final, but I’ve come to view Con Law through the lens of public good. I’m of the belief that while many if not most might view Roberts’ judgment as incoherent at best, I contend Roberts was deliberate and strategic and he got exactly what he wanted. What he wanted being: upholding the ACA while somehow limiting Congressional power. How is that even possible?
There’s a reason Roberts included his opinion on the Commerce Clause issue before his Tax Power opinion. He didn’t need to even address the Commerce Clause, he could’ve just upheld the individual mandate under Tax Power and been done with it. But he made it a point to address the Commerce Clause. If the individual mandate were deemed constitutional under the Commerce Clause, the scope of Congressional power would've been exponentiated overnight. It would've given Congress the “extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power.” The Darby Bootstrap would know no bounds, for inactivity could suffice as the predicate “commerce” needed to legitimize a legislative power as necessary and proper. Much like Rehnquist in Lopez, Roberts drew his line in the sand regarding the Commerce Clause. But public policy demanded the ACA. Roberts had to find a way to make the balancing test work.
And so he struck down Commerce Power and upheld Tax Power. Which is brilliant when you consider that he didn’t even expand Tax Power; the power to tax is enumerated and already virtually infinitely broad. Commerce Power is plenary, but plenary to specific objects/activity whereas Tax Power is almost unlimited in scope yet restrained by the voting public’s aversion to taxes. As Scalia noted in his dissent, Roberts possibly conferred a tax power to the Court, but I’m wondering if Roberts, as a relatively young Chief Justice, isn’t all too concerned about the Court abusing its power under his watch. But in going out of his way to include the Commerce Clause opinion first – when it wasn’t even necessary – Roberts made a definitive statement on Congress’ Commerce Power and its limits. “The invisible language of the law” has never been so visible from my view.
There’s a reason Roberts included his opinion on the Commerce Clause issue before his Tax Power opinion. He didn’t need to even address the Commerce Clause, he could’ve just upheld the individual mandate under Tax Power and been done with it. But he made it a point to address the Commerce Clause. If the individual mandate were deemed constitutional under the Commerce Clause, the scope of Congressional power would've been exponentiated overnight. It would've given Congress the “extraordinary ability to create the necessary predicate to the exercise of an enumerated power.” The Darby Bootstrap would know no bounds, for inactivity could suffice as the predicate “commerce” needed to legitimize a legislative power as necessary and proper. Much like Rehnquist in Lopez, Roberts drew his line in the sand regarding the Commerce Clause. But public policy demanded the ACA. Roberts had to find a way to make the balancing test work.
And so he struck down Commerce Power and upheld Tax Power. Which is brilliant when you consider that he didn’t even expand Tax Power; the power to tax is enumerated and already virtually infinitely broad. Commerce Power is plenary, but plenary to specific objects/activity whereas Tax Power is almost unlimited in scope yet restrained by the voting public’s aversion to taxes. As Scalia noted in his dissent, Roberts possibly conferred a tax power to the Court, but I’m wondering if Roberts, as a relatively young Chief Justice, isn’t all too concerned about the Court abusing its power under his watch. But in going out of his way to include the Commerce Clause opinion first – when it wasn’t even necessary – Roberts made a definitive statement on Congress’ Commerce Power and its limits. “The invisible language of the law” has never been so visible from my view.
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
News Full UFC 302 Card Has Been Released Via UFC - Thoughts?- Latest: Simple Southerner
-
-
