- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 15,205
- Reaction score
- 11,432
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
As I said, if we're honest our opinion about the correctness of the decision is highly correlated with how we feel about the law.
...
I don't think either of us is a constitutional law expert so I don't see the point of arguing the fine points of constitutional law. But if you'd like to read the different opinions about this case, here's the SCOTUS blog's rundown of various opinions. What you'll find is some of the best experts discussing why, obviously, Roberts was correct, and other experts discussing why, clearly, Scalia was.
They didn't make an "error." They interpreted the law differently than the dissent. Ultimately the majority decided that had Congress intended to provide subsidies ONLY state exchanges, they would have made that clear, not hidden the "intent" so well that no one, literally, in Congress mentioned or debated this outcome, nor did the states know of the consequences of deferring to the Feds when they made their decision about setting up the exchange. As one commenter quotes Scalia in another context, "Congress does not hide elephants in mouse holes.”
Talk is cheap; impeach them or deal with their decision. I applaud it!
There is a perverse pleasure watching our right-wing friends post page after page of how this now settled law is somehow not a law just because they were sure the SCOTUS would rule in their favor. There must be some tear-soaked keyboards in the rooms of some of our most fundamental right wing nuts here at the DP.
ludin said:ie I can't actually address the issue with any kind of logic.
I don't owe you healthcare.
ludin said:The public option wasn't just squashed by republicans but democrats as well. so this pandering lie is done and over with.
ludin said:no only democrats were saying that almost every republican knew that this was a lie as well.
ludin said:you can't force coverage on people and expect prices to decrease.
Ockham said:The roads in my State are paid by my state, county roads like the one I live on are paid for by taxes taken at the county level. Unless you live in my county or my state, what and how much exactly do you pay that I would "enjoy" exactly? Quantify it for me.
Ockham said:I pay my own way - I enjoy Netflix ... do you pay my Netflix bill? I enjoy my internet service, I enjoy my car... did you subsidize my car and how much did you subsidize so that I can thank you properly?
Ockham said:The justice system was here before you or I paid taxes to support it and it will be here long after
Ockham said:I "enjoy" the benefits of the justice system... hm... I guess I could say I benefit by it's existence but I don't really have a choice if I want to continue to live in the United States
Ockham said:So let me just state for the record, you don't pay anything that you don't already have to pay by LAW... by LAW you and I pay taxes which keep interstate roads, which keep an military, which keeps a government. We do not have a choice, yet you want me to THANK you for paying your LAWFUL taxes because I benefit by you doing what you have no choice but to do - and that is pay your taxes if you indeed make enough money per year to qualify.
unconstutional acts from a body that is supposed to uphold the constitution they deserve the scorn that they get.
Give up your insurance and go with Obamacare.
Jimmy Carter … let Americans rot in Tehran.
There is a reason that these programs have trillions in unfunded liabilities.
Nonsense, the decision was legally indefensible EXCEPT to the shameless or delusional - unless one wishes to ignore the Constitution's separation of powers and embrace SCOTUS as our true oligarchy of nine - which, I suspect, the majority do. On the other hand, we are spared a Republican clown act of trying to save the program in order to avoid blame, and it gives them a platform to continue to use OC (or Scotus care) as a target.
There is nothing remarkable in the opinion, other than it barely pretends to have a legal basis to what, I am sure, the majority know to be little more than a finding based on fear of (or opposition to) the actual written law. One sensed that at times Roberts wrote with a wink, not unlike the Russian Judge in the Khodorkovsky trial...except that trial the judge laughed earlier with the defense, and then did his oligarchy duty and gave the tycoon the maximum new sentence.
Perhaps most let their view of Obamacare shape their opinion - rather, my view of law shapes my opinion of the legality of Obamacare.
There is no voter who would oppose the Repub to protect ACA who would ever have voted for the Repub anyway.
Your question has zero relevance to the conversation you jumped into.
Chief Justice Roberts quietly burns Scalia in the Obamacare decision
The Supreme Court ruling Thursday is the second time Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Antonin Scalia have squared off on President Obama's health-care reform law. The chief justice wrote the decision upholding the law the first time it came before the court in 2012, and Scalia dissented.
Roberts used the dissent's own words against Scalia in the case decided this week, which focused on what Congress was trying to do when it passed the Affordable Care Act, generally known as Obamacare. <snip> Scalia disagreed. But, back in 2012, he had written that without subsidies, "the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended."
Quit your bellyaching, you sound old.
First of all, 18 more months and Marco Rubio will be president of the United States. And he'll be the greatest president since Ronald Reagan.
I believe that the hand of divine providence has always guided America. When we were a colony in the woods, we had perhaps the greatest group of political minds in the history of the world to that point and since.... all miraculously gathered up in one spot.... our founding fathers. Right when we needed them.
When we needed a Lincoln, we had a Lincoln.
When we needed an FDR to get us through World War 2, we had an FDR.
When we needed a Ronald Reagan to get us out of the doldrums of the 70's, we had a Ronald Reagan.
America will be fine. In fact, it's never been better. We smashed and owned the Soviets in the Cold War, leaving us the only superpower in the world. We dominate the world's high tech industry, the banking and finance industry, the media, etc. We are utterly and completely dominant on the world stage in a way that no nation has ever been in the history of the world. In fact, you're living in the golden age of the American Era. Pax Americana, I believe they call it.
The debt is high, so what? Name one country that doesn't have a high national debt. Look at what's going on in the EU right now with Greece. The whole thing looks ready to implode. China? Would you trade places with China? I sure as hell wouldn't. China has a whole host of problems we can't even begin to discuss or it would take up an entire page.
And in 18 months, the Obama experiment will end, and the country will vote in a CONSERVATIVE who will be our next Reagan.
Any evidence to back that up? Has the rate of increase slowed over the past few years?
I gotta laugh at the response from reactionaries in this thread. They're all over the lot. "It's great news! Now the Democrats will be forced to continue defending the Act." "What a disaster for the country!" Just what I'd expect from people who can't think things through clearly.
The legislation will continue to gain in popularity, and for good reason. A win for Democrats and democracy.
They didn't craft the law. They ruled that the law, though not clear in this instance, should be enforced in the way that it was clearly intended to be enforced by the people that passed it.
The courts rule on the intent of the law all the time.
The language that you are referencing is four words out of a 900 page bill. Such minor mistakes in the language are extremely common and, in any other ordinary political climate, such a mistake would have been fixed as a rather routine practice. But given the Republican's antithesis to any remote resemblance of an attempt to work with the President on this issue (or nearly any other issue before the Trade Agreement), such a fix had to wait until it got all the way to the Supreme Court.
You bring up interesting points, though I'm not sure I (always) see the same results you envision.
Why is it you believe Mrs. Clinton would let the ACA collapse upon itself?
(she was a strong healthcare proponent during her husband's presidency, but got beaten back by the insurance industry then, from my best recollection)
I do find it interesting you feel a Republican could save it, but with someone like Mr. Bush you might be right, seeing that he seems extremely moderate to me. But I'm still not sure I see the GOP as a whole getting behind the ACA or universal healthcare at this time.
And you are right in that there is the possibility of MedicAid expansion (though I originally felt there could be a MediCare expansion, possibly starting with a buy-in, whether subsidized or not). But yes, the MedicAid threshold was increased 125% under the ACA, and it could be progressively bumped-up over time.
I wouldn't doubt that under the umbrella-guise of the ACA, several of these tacts merge and morph over the years into something approaching universal coverage.
But I'm dead against a means-tested 'government picks winners & losers system', like the current ACA and MedicAid. If there's a benefit to be provided, it should be provided for all, equally.
[BTW CanadaJohn, my grandfather migrated from Poland to Canada firstly, living there for quite a few years while bringing in tons of family members, before eventually ending-up in the States. Consequently, I've got relatives from Quebec to Vancouver and we visit each-other occasionally, so I've had some very basic familiarity with the Canuck health system since the early '70's - that's why, in part, I want us to enjoy universal healthcare here.]
Compared to America you're second rate. America says jump, Canada asks how high.
If the American people don't want Obamacare, and we don't, then it won't outlast Obama. Your defeatism might be true if we were talking about Canadians, but we're talking about Americans here. We're doers.
One might think there is a bit of conflict taking place in the back rooms of the SCOTUS
The reason I suggested an expansion of Medicaid is because the original rationale for the ACA was that too many poor people lacked any insurance - it's a legitimate concern in a first world nation - the way to solve it is for the federal government to self-insure them. Why subsidize payments to an insurance company to pad their profit margins when you can simply on a cost basis provide the care needed?
It's true that it would not work as intended without the exchanges. But the law clearly states that subsidies would only be provided thru state exchanges. The intent was to strongarm the states into shouldering the full expense d o wn the road, another unfunded mandate. The federal government offered to cover the majority of the costs in the beginning (you states would be fools to not do this! It's free!), but then the money fades away in subsequent years. The feds could handle it because the taxes started years before benefits, so essentially we were taxed to collect bribe money and expected to be short sighted enough to ignore the eventual costs. And those who could see past tomorrow were labelled obstructionists.
But there were enough state leaders who COULD see down the road, and much to the dismay of their liberal constituents who tend to beselfish assholes who don't care about broader consequences as long as they get their cookie today, said no. So the tactic didn't work. So now the SC has rigged the game and just given the victory to the current administration anyway. We have officially crossed the line as a n ation. The people are no longer represented in government. The last time that happened.....
I'm not sure where the "logic" remark comes from. Feel free to use as much logic as you want.
Actually, you do owe me health care, just as I owe you health care. Everyone in society owes everyone else a certain set of duties, and that's one of them. It always has been, since roughly the beginning of the human race. People join societies and take care of each other. In a very large society, such as ours, we pay taxes, and those monies are administered. Usually (unfortunately) they're not administered fairly, and I think we could do better, but that's just how it is. Again, you're free to live under the alternative.
Liberals squashed it as well. so yes it was a lie.What lie did I tell? What I said was not that republicans had squashed the public option, but that conservatives did so.
Hmmm...it seems to me this is false.
Here, for example, is an article apparently paid for by the Heritage Foundation on the subject:
Competition in the Health Care Market: The Next Revolution
They're pretty republican-heavy, aren't they?
Also, apparently Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis) thinks this is one of the things Republicans have proposed before:
Republicans have proposed many solutions to control health care costs and improve quality, Ron Johnson says | PolitiFact
Ron Paul seems also to think competition would lower costs:
Health Care
I'm sure I could find more if I wanted to spend an hour or two looking for old press releases and such. Now, please note I do not say that conservative democrats didn't harp on the competition bit. Only that republicans did, too.
Depends on how it's done. I would agree with you that the ACA is far from a perfect solution to our health care problems.
No, they ruled on their own view of intent as they needed to justify approving it. If they didn't change the intent, it would have 100% failed as under Equal Protection Clause of the 15th Amendment.. You can't provide a subsidy to one and not the other. So to get around it Supreme Court has redefined the words and it's intention by redefining the word State = Federal Government. So by this virtue, and most Democrats will be happy, there is no such thing as State's rights anymore which again, the Supreme Court failed to uphold Constitutional law (10th Amendment).
Now State = Federal when it doesn't. This is a uber Big Government ruling. Enjoy the ride folks.. this ruling has sealed the deal for me. I am getting the hell out of dodge.
that is the one flaw in the constitution. there is no check and balance against the SCOTUS. the only thing we can hope now is that in 2016 we get a republican president
and be able to repeal this law through the same method that it was put in. that way we can avoid the stoppage in the senate.
LOL. Good plan. Should work out for the "we" whoever that is. Just pick and choose what laws to follow and what laws to ignore. Can't see a problem with that....:shock: :lamo
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?