- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
WASHINGTON (AP) — With demonstrators chanting outside, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments Monday on the fate of President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul, no less controversial two years after Democrats pushed it to passage in Congress. Twenty-six states are leading the legal challenge, while Republican presidential candidates are vowing to repeal it after throwing Obama out of office.
Here is my prediction: The Supreme Court will uphold parts of Obamacare, while striking down other parts of the law, specifically the requirement that everybody obtain health insurance or face penalties. While it is true that states require you to purchase car insurance, this is done by the states, NOT by the Federal government, and I believe that this is where SCOTUS will draw the line.
Discussion?
Article is here.
They are going to punt on the individual mandate. Since you cannot sue about taxes until after you have gone into effect, and that portion does not go into effect till 2014, they will not rule on that portion. They actually have ~1/3 of the time scheduled to discuss standing on that portion of the suit.
Here is my prediction: The Supreme Court will uphold parts of Obamacare, while striking down other parts of the law, specifically the requirement that everybody obtain health insurance or face penalties. While it is true that states require you to purchase car insurance, this is done by the states, NOT by the Federal government, and I believe that this is where SCOTUS will draw the line.
Discussion?
Article is here.
states require car insurance.
lenders require flood insurance, including for federally-backed mortgages.
The problem is the Anti-Injunction Act, which dates to 1867. It says, “No suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.”
States do not require people to purchase cars, nor purchase houses.... which invalidates your "requirement" argument as it applies to ObamaCare and the mandate.
Here is my prediction: The Supreme Court will uphold parts of Obamacare, while striking down other parts of the law, specifically the requirement that everybody obtain health insurance or face penalties. While it is true that states require you to purchase car insurance, this is done by the states, NOT by the Federal government, and I believe that this is where SCOTUS will draw the line.
Discussion?
Article is here.
states require parents to feed, cloth, house, & educate their children.
you think these things are free?
The government doesn't require people to have children either.
states require parents to feed, cloth, house, & educate their children.
you think these things are free?
Obama and co. were emphatically against the idea that it's a "tax" before it became a hail mary to save it in court.
Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax - ABC News
They are going to punt on the individual mandate. Since you cannot sue about taxes until after you have gone into effect, and that portion does not go into effect till 2014, they will not rule on that portion. They actually have ~1/3 of the time scheduled to discuss standing on that portion of the suit.
States do not require people to purchase cars, nor purchase houses.... which invalidates your "requirement" argument as it applies to ObamaCare and the mandate.
But they do require insurance if you already have a car. Everybody already has emergency health insurance and will be treated at any emergency room in the country regardless of ability to pay. That "insurance" is now free, the law only asks that all peopel now pay for it. Is that your problem? Paying for insurance that used to be free?
very, very good point.
currently, ALL Americans have free, taxpayer-funded emergency health insurance. Its called Medicaid.
the govt. is now simply asking Americans to PAY for this insurance, rather than getting it from the taxpayers.
that's a stupid comment, friend.
But they do require insurance if you already have a car. Everybody already has emergency health insurance and will be treated at any emergency room in the country regardless of ability to pay. That "insurance" is now free, the law only asks that all peopel now pay for it. Is that your problem? Paying for insurance that used to be free?
Are you seriously suggesting that bills does nothing more than force people--who couldn't afford health insurance prior--to start paying for health insurance, or pay a fine?
If they couldn't afford it before, how in the hell are they going to afford it, now?
um...with govt. help.
maybe you shouldn't comment on ObamaCare, if you are unfamiliar with the details of ObamaCare.
Here is my prediction: The Supreme Court will uphold parts of Obamacare, while striking down other parts of the law, specifically the requirement that everybody obtain health insurance or face penalties. While it is true that states require you to purchase car insurance, this is done by the states, NOT by the Federal government, and I believe that this is where SCOTUS will draw the line.
Discussion?
Article is here.
I'm hoping the mandate portion is identified as unconstitutional, because I believe it is in my opinion. There are sections of the bill that do make sense and that should be kept but the main issue for me is, no matter what happens - ObamaCare has to be scrapped financially and reworked.... the cost savings are not there. The costs are 1.2 trillion higher than expected which means politicians over promised as politicians often do, and now reality sets in. We'll go broke. If portions of it like the mandate are struck down, we'll STILL have to rework it because the bill basically cannot fund itself, so it'll have to be reworked anyway. It could go into a single payer system, it could be a system which allows competition across state lines, it could include a total restructuring of health care such that the "insurance" we use isn't used as a payment plan, but is actually used as insurance.
There's a few ways it could go that would be BETTER... but I have faith in our political system to **** it up royally and choose a worse option than ObamaCare. After all... the more politicians **** our lives up, the more job security they have by taking the next 30 years to "fix" it.
Which is irrelevant to whether it is or is not a tax.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?