1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Thank you Chief Justice Roberts, you are a wise man.

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Digital Doctor, Jun 28, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Digital Doctor

    Digital Doctor Well-Known Member

    Supreme Court Let's Health Care Bill stand.
    Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the decision offers no endorsement of the law’s wisdom, and that letting it survive reflects “a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the nation’s elected leaders.”

    “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” he wrote.
    Justice Roberts is a gutsy genius.
    A surprising bold move - excellent job.
    Never saw it coming (neither did Romney).

    Maybe the defunct American political system has a chance.
    No it doesnt !
    At least one Supreme Court Justice knows it is not their role to overturn major policy passed by the .gov

    Romney et. al, can say "We'll repeal it anyway" .... but they must be devastated. It's just reason #100 the republicans are doomed in November.
    0xym0r0n and pipedreams like this.
  2. DBA

    DBA Well-Known Member

    While I tend to believe that he made the right call (politics should have no part in the Supreme Court), the "affordable" health care law is a gigantic pile of crap.
    Fred Sherman, dutchbb, Brad L and 4 others like this.
  3. rexxxy

    rexxxy Active Member

    Can explain to me why its crap?
  4. 0xym0r0n

    0xym0r0n Well-Known Member

    I have pre-existing conditions and I doubt that my rates will be any lower. I spoke to a few companies regarding it and they said that many things would affect the rates if it is ever passed. In other words they were probably telling me it'd be the same rates.

    Being forced to purchase the insurance will dramatically affect my life as I would not be poor enough to get free/discounted insurance but it'd have me on the edge.

    I'd probably have to find another part time job or scraping for some web dev gigs lol NOT HAPPY with this :(
  5. rexxxy

    rexxxy Active Member

    If I'm not mistaken that part of the bill doesn't kick in until next year also before they could have deny you insurance for pre existing conditions now they have to give it to you reasonable
  6. DBA

    DBA Well-Known Member

    Can you please explain why it's good? Oh and with it being ~2,700 pages it'd better be more than a couple items.

    I actually agree that there are a few good things in there, but at a cost that IMO is just to high.
  7. akia

    akia Well-Known Member

    Thank god for the NHS, Even though I also have private medical insurance.
    Digital Doctor likes this.
  8. rexxxy

    rexxxy Active Member

    so what do suggest they need to change to make it better? because hospital and insurance company is making a killing of people then denying them coverage on a daily basis
  9. Brent W

    Brent W Well-Known Member

    Democrats tried to solve the healthcare issues that face this country. Whether you agree they will work or not is debatable. What isn't debatable is that Republicans offered no solutions to a growin healthcare problems for many Americans in this country, as usual. Republicans seem to only care about legislating morality and policing other countries with our military.
  10. DBA

    DBA Well-Known Member

    You're serious?

    Health insurance companies have a pretty low net profit margin. According to Yahoo Finance an average of 4.5% (source). The drug and equipment manufactures are the ones raking in the dough.
    dilbert and Steve F like this.
  11. DRE

    DRE Well-Known Member

    ObamaCare is unconstitutional and just one of the many reasons I regret voting for him.
    Fred Sherman likes this.
  12. DBA

    DBA Well-Known Member

    Oh really?

    Paul Ryan has some good ideas.
  13. a legacy reborn

    a legacy reborn Well-Known Member

    The government does not have the right to regulate state commerce. This is unconstitutional and was done foolishly. There are some parts of the bill that are good but forcing people to buy something is not up to the Fed. They can go regulate inter-state commerce all they want but state commerce(healthcare) is a state matter.
    DBA and 8thos like this.
  14. Slavik

    Slavik XenForo Moderator Staff Member

    I haven't followed this much, can someone explain Obamacare to me simply?

    As it reads:

    If your under a certain income level you get free healthcare
    If your over a certain level you have to take your own insurance
    For both groups, the insurance companies have to accept existing healthcare items instead of denying patients?
  15. Onimua

    Onimua Well-Known Member

    Doesn't part of the bill cover that? If the states have a better plan that provides the same coverage or better, they can implement it instead of this one.
  16. a legacy reborn

    a legacy reborn Well-Known Member

    Doesn't matter. The federal government has no authority to regulate state commerce.
    8thos likes this.
  17. Brent W

    Brent W Well-Known Member

    Unfortunately the Supreme Court just disagreed with you.
  18. Digital Doctor

    Digital Doctor Well-Known Member

    Yes, all true.
    The big stink comes from the fact that you are MANDATED to have insurance.
    The government can levy a TAX against you, if you don't have insurance.

    People said it was unconstitutional to FORCE people to have insurance. Justice Roberts said you aren't forced to have insurance, it's just you'll have to pay the TAX if you don't ( and that is not unconstitutional ).


    Republicans are SOOOOOOoooooooo dooomed in November, it isn't going to be close.
  19. whynot

    whynot Well-Known Member

    I'm employed, paying tax.
    I have to have private insurance or have to pay extra tax for health services.

    I'm unemployed, not paying any tax.
    I cannot afford private insurance so I'm enforced to pay extra tax for health services???
  20. jadmperry

    jadmperry Well-Known Member

    Okay, I just point out a few technical points. The Supreme Court found that the Affordable Care Act violated the Commerce Clause. It was constitutional, however, based on Congressional power to lay and collect taxes.

    I haven't read all 193 pages of the decision, but I doubt there is anything about the distinction between interstate commerce and commerce within the states. There is a Supreme Court case, Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 63 S. Ct. 82, 87 L. Ed. 122 (1942), that states essentially that if something is local, but aggregated across many states it would impact interstate commerce, it does not exceed the Commerce Clause power for Congress to regulate it. The problem with Affordable Care Act with the Commerce Clause was, as critics stated, it regulated inactivity vice activity.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page