Supreme Court Decisions

[Deleted member 365]

We're all Wall Street's bitches now. They are the only ones who benefit from this ruling. It's not that they're forcing us to pay for other's HC, it's that I must now line the pockets that much heavier of the health insurance firms and Wall Street banks that own them.

3 hoorahs for fascism.

We've been paying for each other's HC for a long time now.

The difference now is that (hopefully) everyone will have coverage, folks won't be denied because of pre-existing conditions, and that our society will focus to more preventative health care rather than the more expensive (treatment).

 

[Former Member]

I figured you knew.

I figured you knew that I knew. I just wanted to up my post count a bit.

 

[Stoked]

I figured you knew that I knew. I just wanted to up my post count a bit.

That never happens around here...


@ Thriller - There are some good things in that bill. No pre-existing conditions, being able to cover kids till they are 26 (?). I just did not like that we are "forced" to buy insurance.

 

[Deleted member 365]

That never happens around here...


@ Thriller - There are some good things in that bill. No pre-existing conditions, being able to cover kids till they are 26 (?). I just did not like that we are "forced" to buy insurance.

I don't like that the Jazz don't have a 1st round pick.

We're better off being "forced" to buy insurance. It helps control costs and insures that everyone can get the HC that they need. The Individual Mandate was probably about the last good idea that repubs had. Since then they've gone off the deep end of far rightness wackiness with endless wars, demands to privatize SS, anti-climate change/science movement, mindless tax cuts, and defense of wall street/banks/richies at all costs. That tea party stunt to run our country off a cliff and downgrade our credit rating said a lot IMO. they set a new low in politics IMO...

 

[Stoked]

I don't like that the Jazz don't have a 1st round pick.

We're better off being "forced" to buy insurance. It helps control costs and insures that everyone can get the HC that they need. The Individual Mandate was probably about the last good idea that repubs had. Since then they've gone off the deep end of far rightness wackiness with endless wars, demands to privatize SS, anti-climate change/science movement, mindless tax cuts, and defense of wall street/banks/richies at all costs. That tea party stunt to run our country off a cliff and downgrade our credit rating said a lot IMO. they set a new low in politics IMO...

I guess that is where we disagree. Having insurance is a good thing and those that chose not to are being stupid. I strongly disagree with the notion that the government or society needs to be baby sitters.I have to force people to do what is good for them. If they want to be dumb stuff the have the right to do so.

Now obviously there have to be some laws but forcing compliance on health insurance coverage is over governance in my opinion. Obviously the Supreme Court disagrees.

 

[Former Member]

This is interesting. The argument is that there is no mandate to buy insurance, however, you must pay a "tax" if you do not have insurance. The thing I don't like about this is that I'm worried that the "tax" will only effect the poor/middle class who cannot afford insurance. Here is a link and a quote.

https://money.cnn.com/2012/06/28/pf/taxes/health_reform_new_taxes/?source=cnn_bin

"The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a divided court. "The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance."

 

[Deleted member 365]

I guess that is where we disagree. Having insurance is a good thing and those that chose not to are being stupid. I strongly disagree with the notion that the government or society needs to be baby sitters.I have to force people to do what is good for them. If they want to be dumb stuff the have the right to do so.

Now obviously there have to be some laws but forcing compliance on health insurance coverage is over governance in my opinion. Obviously the Supreme Court disagrees.

Huge difference between being baby sitters and saving life.

If someone isn't insured and gets sick, then we all pay for their treatment/health care since hospitals/doctors do not have a right to kill someone/refuse service. So unless you're willing to adjust Hippocratic Oath and the ethics of the medical practitioners in our country, you're going to have to deal with mandatory health insurance since idiots who refuse to get insurance end up costing me and you anyway.

Again, this was an idea created by the (rational) right that was lost a decade or two ago to SAVE money. Everyone is insured, everyone slaps some skin into this thing, and no one needs to go bankrupt because they were either refused health insurance, unable to pay, or acted stupidly by not getting insurance.

Freedom? You still have the freedom to choose.

If you truly do not want to pay, then go ahead and pay the fine.

 

[One Brow]

Look at that...Brow finally said something that was not ignorant.

It's amazing how directly my ignorance is tied into the agreement of the individual poster analyzint the level of my ignorance.

 

[sirkickyass]

It's an odd little decision. My best guess is that Roberts is trying to make this is Marbury v. Madison moment where he lets the Congress do what it was going to do anyway but reaffirms judicial power in a more meaningful and substantive way down the line while making the victory for the other political party somewhat pyrrhic. For the commerce clause the affirmation of Justice Kennedy's infamous "can you create commerce to regulate it" question may be the beginning of the death of longstanding commerce clause jurisprudence by 1,000 cuts.

In retrospect "it's a tax" was always the cleanest kill given the enforcement mechanism, but the tea party lunacy surrounding the entire spate of litigation to begin with explains why they didn't want to handle it as such.

 

[Revolution 9]

Chief Justice John Roberts: American Hero

Stepped across party lines, and did the right thing. Thank you sir.

 

[Stoked]

It's an odd little decision. My best guess is that Roberts is trying to make this is Marbury v. Madison moment where he lets the Congress do what it was going to do anyway but reaffirms judicial power in a more meaningful and substantive way down the line while making the victory for the other political party somewhat pyrrhic. For the commerce clause the affirmation of Justice Kennedy's infamous "can you create commerce to regulate it" question may be the beginning of the death of longstanding commerce clause jurisprudence by 1,000 cuts.

In retrospect "it's a tax" was always the cleanest kill given the enforcement mechanism, but the tea party lunacy surrounding the entire spate of litigation to begin with explains why they didn't want to handle it as such.

Where in the HELL have you been!?

 

[One Brow]

If they want to be dumb stuff the have the right to do so.

The only way that makes een marginal sense is ifother people don't wind up paying for their dumbness. With health care, if they are dumb, you wind up covering the cost of their hospital bills.