• Supreme Court upholds Obamacare
    203 replies, posted
[url]http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/how-will-supreme-court-rule-on-health-care-law/?hpt=hp_t1[/url] [quote][Updated at 10:16 a.m. ET] Kate Bolduan reports that the Chief Justice John Roberts issued a long opinion in which he said the controversial individual mandate may be upheld and is within Congress’ power under the taxing clause rather than the commerce clause.[/quote] [url]https://twitter.com/CNNSitRoom/status/218347902303608832[/url] - CNN twitter update [quote]Supreme Court backs all parts of Obama’s signature health care law, including individual mandate that requires all to have health insurance[/quote] SCOTUS Q&A [quote][Updated at 10:28 a.m. ET] In its 5-4 decision to uphold the U.S. health care law, the Supreme Court answered several key questions: Question: Can the court decide the constitutionality of health care now, or does it have to wait a few years? To answer, the court had to decide whether a penalty the law imposes on people who do not have health insurance amounts to a tax. A previously obscure law mandated that the legality of a tax cannot be challenged until it is imposed, and the health care law doesn't call for penalties until 2014. The court's answer: The court upheld the entire law. Question: Is the requirement that people have health insurance - the so-called individual mandate - constitutional? The court's answer: Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the commerce clause did not apply, but the mandate stands under the taxing clause. Question: If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, can the rest of the law stand, or is the whole thing unconstitutional? The court's answer: The mandate is constitutional, rendering moot further questions on the rest of the law. Question: Can the federal government force states to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration? The court's answer: Yes, but the justices ruled that the federal government cannot remove existing Medicaid funding if the states choose not to participate in the new program.[/quote]
The key part survived
-snip- Found the real answer.
UPDATE [quote][Updated at 10:16 a.m. ET] Kate Bolduan reports that the Chief Justice John Roberts issued a long opinion in which he said the controversial individual mandate may be upheld and is within Congress’ power under the taxing clause rather than the commerce clause.[/quote]
The entire law was upheld,it just cant be implemented under the commerce clause. [editline]28th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Funcoot;36534015]I have to ask, if that is a violation of the constitution, then why do we have to have car insurance?[/QUOTE] Big difference
Please be upheld please be upheld Healthcare is a necessity not a commodity. Fuck if someone doesn't want it just pay the fine don't be so fucking self centered.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;36534034]The entire law was upheld,it just cant be implemented under the commerce clause. [editline]28th June 2012[/editline] Big difference[/QUOTE] I understand there is a big difference between car and health insurance. I'm just asking at the principle level.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;36534015]I have to ask, if that is a violation of the constitution, then why do we have to have car insurance?[/QUOTE] You don't have to own a car, but then again you don't have to go to a doctor, "get fucked" is always an option. Really this would just make a lot more sense if there was a public option, but insurance companies would dread that because then they'd actually have to offer competetive premiums and employers wouldn't be able to just attach insurance to employment. Still, fuck, if they uphold it Romney's constituency will only be more motivated.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;36534055]I understand there is a big difference between car and health insurance. I'm just asking at the principle level.[/QUOTE] You don't have to have a car.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;36534072]You don't have to have a car.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, but that argument in itself is extremely poor. Tell a someone living in a rural town that has to travel 50+ miles to work that he does not need a car. Not everyone lives in a metro where a car is something you can simply go without. A car is not simply an option to many Americans. Over 89% of American's own vehicles. I actually did some research and got a real answer. "Driving is a priviledge not a right. In order to use the priviledge you must make provisions for the safety of others. Under the 10th amendment a state can madate auto insurance. Insurance is sold to meet each state's individual requirements. It is not transferable."
[QUOTE=Funcoot;36534192]I'm sorry, but that argument in itself is extremely poor. Tell a someone living in a rural town that has to travel 50+ miles to work that he does not need a car. Not everyone lives in a metro where a car is something you can simply go without. I actually did some research and got a real answer. "Driving is a priviledge not a right. In order to use the priviledge you must make provisions for the safety of others. Under the 10th amendment a state can madate auto insurance. Insurance is sold to meet each state's individual requirements. It is not transferable."[/QUOTE] Its not a poor argument, its the most basic argument. You are not required to purchase car insurance just for existing, you must first purchase a car.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;36534234]Its not a poor argument, its the most basic argument. You are not required to purchase car insurance just for existing, you must first purchase a car.[/QUOTE] Correct - I never had to have car insurance until I got my license and started driving. You aren't required to have car insurance unless you have a car or some other motor vehicle you use to commute. So you don't [I]need[/I] insurance. You need a car.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;36534234]Its not a poor argument, its the most basic argument. You are not required to purchase car insurance just for existing, you must first purchase a car.[/QUOTE] It is a poor argument. It assumes that a vehicle is simply a commodity to all American's, which simply isn't the case. To many American's, a vehicle is as necessary to their family's well being as healthcare. I'm not arguing against the requirement of purchasing auto insurance, I am just trying to play devils advocate.
I can only imagine the EPIC fallout out of this ruling. that just made my day after Gmod went down last night.
I really expected them to strike down at least part of the law. This is fucking great [editline]28th June 2012[/editline] I had completely forgotten that the ruling was today, came home and saw this, came
You also don't have to go to a doctor or hospital, you can just die.
[QUOTE=smurfy;36534275]I really expected them to strike down at least part of the law. This is fucking great [editline]28th June 2012[/editline] I had completely forgotten that the ruling was today, came home and saw this, came[/QUOTE] I'm so stoked right now. Regarding the car thing: it's a necessity here. No public transit.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;36534269]It is a poor argument. It assumes that a vehicle is simply a commodity to all American's, which simply isn't the case. To many American's, a vehicle is as necessary to their family's well being as healthcare.[/QUOTE] It is a commodity. Food is also a commodity and you need that to survive. What's necessary is usually a commodity but not vice versa
As a minor who doesn't have to deal with his own health insurance yet, can someone explain to me how obamacare actually functions? Or just provide a link to a page explaining it. Also someone on my facebook page is comparing one's diet to health insurance. " If the federal government told you that you need to have a certain diet, would you be so complacent? There is precedent for it now. It could be tacked on as an earmark and rushed through." What do?
[QUOTE=Protocol7;36534314]It is a commodity. Food is also a commodity and you need that to survive. What's necessary is usually a commodity but not vice versa[/QUOTE] Fair enough. I understand.
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;36534047]Fuck if someone doesn't want it just pay the fine don't be so fucking self centered.[/QUOTE] That's not being self centered. I wouldn't have a problem paying a tax so that less fortunate people could get decent healthcare. One of the big issues was having to pay for people that are detrimental to their own health; smokers, fat fucks, drug addicts etc etc
Also, thanks for the healthcare guys. Obamacare will effect me and my family greatly. :)
Obama is going to win re-election then eh. This was pretty much the only thing that could have turned the tide against him
[QUOTE=Funcoot;36534323]Fair enough. I understand.[/QUOTE] And here I was gearing up for a 3-page long debate with someone on the internet
calling it now... republicans will stress the bad, and the ways they would change the law to make it work (which democrats wont allow) democrats will stress the good, and the ways they would change the law to make it better (which republicans wont allow) insurance rates start going up (even faster then before) subsides towards the poor getting insurance will become a states issue (unfunded mandate) most annoying part? health care reform is desperately needed, and there are many other effective ways to go about it. i personally dont think forcing out private insurance and going with gov insurance is the way to go/ but i also dont think allowing insurance companies to hold their monopoly works well either.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;36534360]And here I was gearing up for a 3-page long debate with someone on the internet[/QUOTE] If someone makes a good point that I can't argue with, I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing. You were right. :v:
[QUOTE=-nesto-;36534331]That's not being self centered. I wouldn't have a problem paying a tax so that less fortunate people could get decent healthcare. One of the big issues was having to pay for people that are detrimental to their own health; smokers, fat fucks, drug addicts etc etc[/QUOTE] I don't mind. My dad smokes cigars. He's also a very highly productive person of our society. Good ethics etc. I do not think he deserves to be left out.
[QUOTE=Funcoot;36534376]If someone makes a good point that I can't argue with, I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing. You were right. :v:[/QUOTE] I thought you were gonna be like most first-page question askers and fight EVERY POINT MADE tooth and nail :v: [editline]28th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;36534387]I don't mind. My dad smokes cigars. He's also a very highly productive person of our society. Good ethics etc. I do not think he deserves to be left out.[/QUOTE] But some people, myself included, don't want to pay for what is effectively someone else's vice
[QUOTE=Protocol7;36534396]I thought you were gonna be like most first-page question askers and fight EVERY POINT MADE tooth and nail :v: [editline]28th June 2012[/editline] But some people, myself included, don't want to pay for what is effectively someone else's vice[/QUOTE] Eh, I'm not going to argue. It's an ideological difference. Good day to you.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;36534396]I thought you were gonna be like most first-page question askers and fight EVERY POINT MADE tooth and nail :v:[/QUOTE] And it was settled in only a few posts. :zoid:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.