Obama gets up in the United States Supreme Courts grill

[MamaMia]

Obama Issues Stern Warning to the Supreme Court Justices

President Obama on Monday issued stern language to the Supreme Court of the United States regarding his health care law, expressing confidence "Obamacare" will not be overturned by the nation's highest court.

"I'm confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld," the president said Monday afternoon at a White House press conference that included Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who are attending the North American Leaders' Summit. The president said overturning the law would be "an unprecedented and extraordinary step" and compared the court's rejection of the law to "judicial activism."

"For years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism," the president said, baiting conservatives who have long complained about justices' political agendas. The president stressed that the judges are "unelected" and noted that the law was passed by a democratically elected Congress.

Monday's comments were the first public warning the president has issued since the justices heard oral arguments last week on the constitutionality of the law, which includes an individual health care mandate.

It remains to be seen how the justices will rule on the matter. On Friday, the court began deliberations, which could last through June. The ruling could significantly impact the president's re-election strategy.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/president-obamacare-191235956.html

[StoopTroup]

Sounds like he has a good point. The longer the GOP seems to try and prove they are diifferent than the Dems, they doouble down on being even more like the dems.

[sappstuf]

Obama Issues Stern Warning to the Supreme Court Justices

President Obama on Monday issued stern language to the Supreme Court of the United States regarding his health care law, expressing confidence "Obamacare" will not be overturned by the nation's highest court.

"I'm confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld," the president said Monday afternoon at a White House press conference that included Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who are attending the North American Leaders' Summit. The president said overturning the law would be "an unprecedented and extraordinary step" and compared the court's rejection of the law to "judicial activism."

"For years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism," the president said, baiting conservatives who have long complained about justices' political agendas. The president stressed that the judges are "unelected" and noted that the law was passed by a democratically elected Congress.

Monday's comments were the first public warning the president has issued since the justices heard oral arguments last week on the constitutionality of the law, which includes an individual health care mandate.

It remains to be seen how the justices will rule on the matter. On Friday, the court began deliberations, which could last through June. The ruling could significantly impact the president's re-election strategy.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/president-obamacare-191235956.html

If having a "democratically elected Congress" is all it takes, then following the president's logic, why even have a Supreme Court then? I guess checks and balances don't apply to Obama....

There have been around 53 laws overturned by the SCOTUS in the past 30 years or so, Obama only thinks it is outrageous that his might get overturned...

He's scared.

[OULenexaman]

and he should be....

[Curly Bill]

Constitutional scholar my a**. Whomever has said that about Brack is a blooming idiot!

[olevetonahill]

Dont that Constitutional Scholar know thats the Jorb of The SC?
To over turn things passed by the ELECTED congress that are Unconstitutional?

[olevetonahill]

Constitutional scholar my a**. Whomever has said that about Brack is a blooming idiot!
Heh

[cleller]

Where was all this talk about "judicial activism" back in the 60s when the Supreme Court was going Coo-Coo for Cocoa Puffs?

[Midtowner]

There's lots of solid legal analysis and discussion of policy in this thread.

The President is alluding to the fact that there is no case law limiting the scope of the commerce clause with regard to actual channels and instrumentalities of commerce. If the Court was to suddenly rule that there is a limit in compelling citizens to participate in commerce, then that would be legislation from the bench. I guess for some, it's okay to legislate from the bench so long as you agree with it. If not, then you're talking about activist judges who are unelected, etc. In other words, it's not about principle, it's about winning.

What's so different between the SCOTUS making up the Miranda rights out of thin air and ruling that the feds can't compel you to participate in commerce? Which one would follow originalism and which one is interpreting the Constitution as a living/breathing document? I gots to know.

[XingTheRubicon]

I think this is part of what Boehner meant by Obama having absolutely no idea how negotiations work. Threatening untouchable, lifetime appointees that have forgotten more than he'll ever know...what a ****ing amateur.

[OULenexaman]

Constitutional scholar my a**. Whomever has said that about Brack is a blooming idiot! I think it was BHO himself that calls him that.

[olevetonahill]

Constitutional scholar my a**. Whomever has said that about Brack is a blooming idiot!


I think it was BHO himself that calls him that.
BHO calls Himself a Blooming Idiot?:unconscious:

[Midtowner]

I think this is part of what Boehner meant by Obama having absolutely no idea how negotiations work. Threatening untouchable, lifetime appointees that have forgotten more than he'll ever know...what a ****ing amateur.

FDR took down the Four Horsemen. Read your history. Not that much has changed.

[jkjsooner]

What's so different between the SCOTUS making up the Miranda rights out of thin air and ruling that the feds can't compel you to participate in commerce? Which one would follow originalism and which one is interpreting the Constitution as a living/breathing document? I gots to know.

Exactly.

It all should be a moot point anyway. I still believe they successfully instituted everything within the tax structure which is in their legal right. I suppose I'm about the only one who feels that way though.

[Curly Bill]

I think it was BHO himself that calls him that.

Well that explains it!

[Midtowner]

Exactly.

It all should be a moot point anyway. I still believe they successfully instituted everything within the tax structure which is in their legal right. I suppose I'm about the only one who feels that way though.

True enough. I don't see how tax credits for making babies can be legal while tax penalties for failing to procure medical insurance are illegal. I really hadn't even considered the taxing/spending clause, but Congress' power to tax is pretty much unlimited. A ruling repealing the individual mandate would have to reach into that area as well as the commerce clause aspects.

Tax policy has long been used to encourage and discourage economic activity. I fail to see the distinction here.

[jkjsooner]

True enough. I don't see how tax credits for making babies can be legal while tax penalties for failing to procure medical insurance are illegal. I really hadn't even considered the taxing/spending clause, but Congress' power to tax is pretty much unlimited. A ruling repealing the individual mandate would have to reach into that area as well as the commerce clause aspects.

Tax policy has long been used to encourage and discourage economic activity. I fail to see the distinction here.


The funny thing is that had they raised taxes $695 and given a $695 credit to those who had insurance there would have been no question about the constitutionality.

That means we're not actually trampling on individual's constitutional rights (as the treatment of the individual would have been essentially identical) but instead we're talking about a technicality.

[Midtowner]

The funny thing is that had they raised taxes $695 and given a $695 credit to those who had insurance there would have been no question about the constitutionality.

That means we're not actually trampling on individual's constitutional rights (as the treatment of the individual would have been essentially identical) but instead we're talking about a technicality.

A hypertechnicality really. So can any of those opposed to the Act explain how your position makes any sense at all? Or will you just continue to misspell the President's name?

[sappstuf]

There's lots of solid legal analysis and discussion of policy in this thread.

The President is alluding to the fact that there is no case law limiting the scope of the commerce clause with regard to actual channels and instrumentalities of commerce. If the Court was to suddenly rule that there is a limit in compelling citizens to participate in commerce, then that would be legislation from the bench. I guess for some, it's okay to legislate from the bench so long as you agree with it. If not, then you're talking about activist judges who are unelected, etc. In other words, it's not about principle, it's about winning.

What's so different between the SCOTUS making up the Miranda rights out of thin air and ruling that the feds can't compel you to participate in commerce? Which one would follow originalism and which one is interpreting the Constitution as a living/breathing document? I gots to know.

It is as deep as the President's statement...


We are confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld.

Stunning insight from the constitutional law professor.

[pphilfran]

All citizens should have catastrophic insurance

No pre existing condition

No lifetime or yearly limit

No profit on the basic catastrophic insurance...profits on add on items

Sign up at one place...all providers must list prices and coverage (basic must meet certain criteria) so comparison is simple

[pphilfran]

A hypertechnicality really. So can any of those opposed to the Act explain how your position makes any sense at all? Or will you just continue to misspell the President's name?

The trillion dollar question...they can regulate commerce but are they allowed to make commerce...some judges are going to say yes and some say no...let's spin the wheel and see where she lands...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Heeeelarious, Pot calling the kettle black... Years of Dim judicial action and a chance a law may be found unconstitutional and the ulimate Lib himself cries "judicial activism"... Heeelarious...

I wonder who his spy is???

[TheHumanAlphabet]

All citizens should have catastrophic insurance

No pre existing condition

No lifetime or yearly limit

No profit on the basic catastrophic insurance...profits on add on items

Sign up at one place...all providers must list prices and coverage (basic must meet certain criteria) so comparison is simple

Not a bad idea... I agree with all the precepts, though as long as the government does not provide or compete on the insurance.

[sappstuf]

The trillion dollar question...they can regulate commerce but are they allowed to make commerce...some judges are going to say yes and some say no...let's spin the wheel and see where she lands...

That is the exact question Justice Kennedy asked..


Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?

[pphilfran]

That is the exact question Justice Kennedy asked..

I know...I kinda stole it...

[XingTheRubicon]

FDR took down the Four Horsemen. Read your history. Not that much has changed.
Perhaps you should read your history. Do you even know what fdr proposed? Threatening to add more justices until the majority were socialist and pro new deal. The four horseman started retiring is what ultimately turned the tide in the late 30's. If you think Obama could get away with something like that now, you're even more delusional than Obama.

[Midtowner]

Perhaps you should read your history. Do you even know what fdr proposed? Threatening to add more justices until the majority were socialist and pro new deal. The four horseman started retiring is what ultimately turned the tide in the late 30's. If you think Obama could get away with something like that now, you're even more delusional than Obama.

Actually, just one of them, Roberts, I believe, switched sides and upheld the New Deal reforms from there on out.

Thinking that there would be public outcry is a little over the top. Just last year, after the Oklahoma Supreme Court killed a few tort reform measures, Oklahoma legislative leaders were talking very openly about adding additional Justices--and if you're familiar with how the Judicial Nomination Commission is now set up pursuant to recent constitutional amendments, court packing is a viable plan.

[XingTheRubicon]

Roberts also said the "court-packing" BS had nothing to do with his decision, but I'm sure you knew that.

[MamaMia]

[Obama]noted that the law was passed by a democratically elected Congress.


If this bill was being voted on today, it wouldn't even pass.

[Serenity Now]

All citizens should have catastrophic insurance

No pre existing condition

No lifetime or yearly limit

No profit on the basic catastrophic insurance...profits on add on items

Sign up at one place...all providers must list prices and coverage (basic must meet certain criteria) so comparison is simpleRegardless of how much sense you may make with this argument it is obvious that you hate freedom. :|

[soonercruiser]

Sounds like he has a good point. The longer the GOP seems to try and prove they are diifferent than the Dems, they doouble down on being even more like the dems.

Then, YOU are obviously missing the constitutional argument....making you more like the Dems every day!

[soonercruiser]

The trillion dollar question...they can regulate commerce but are they allowed to make commerce...some judges are going to say yes and some say no...let's spin the wheel and see where she lands...

The qusetion to libs and lib justices is....

So, you can tell a wheat "producer" to limit production because it effects commerce....after he has already decided to produce wheat.....or is in the process of producing wheat.

But, Can you tell the farmer to produce wheat, then tell the baker to use that wheat to make bread; and furthermore tell me to buy that bread when I don't want to????
THAT, is the question at hand. Please find that in the Constitution!

These insults to the SCOTUS from the same "president" that openly insulted them in their presence at the state of the union address afew years back.
The bottom line is Obama would be the boy King!
He has already proven that he wants to rule by "fiat"!

It's time to overthrow the King! (Using the constitution)

[MamaMia]

......
These insults to the SCOTUS from the same "president" that openly insulted them in their presence at the state of the union address afew years back.The bottom line is Obama would be the boy King!
He has already proven that he wants to rule by "fiat"!

It's time to overthrow the King! (Using the constitution)When I read this article, I thought back to that day. I can still see the faces of the Supreme Court Justices sitting there looking helpless, shocked and dismayed. I thought then and again yesterday when I read this article...How dare he! This is pure arrogance to the 10th degree.

[StoopTroup]

Then, YOU are obviously missing the constitutional argument....making you more like the Dems every day!

Not really. Your still forgetting Ive been a registared Republican for 33years.

[StoopTroup]

If this bill was being voted on today, it wouldn't even pass.

It's my understanding that Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote that will more than likely give President Obama the votes he needs but that most Justices think that taking the time to look this over is the right thing to do.

[Sooner5030]

If they do not overturn I bet Kennedy will require a very detailed, prohibitive opinion to prevent this case law from extending beyond health insurance. This decision scares me more with regards to things other than health insurance.

[StoopTroup]

If they do not overturn I bet Kennedy will require a very detailed, prohibitive opinion to prevent this case law from extending beyond health insurance. This decision scares me more with regards to things other than health insurance.


And the fact that many GOP supporters don't give a damn as long as another Obama something goes down in flames is why i stated what I did in my. First post in this thread. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

[MamaMia]

What I wish for is competition across state lines. Medical insurance companies should be able to compete for clients across state line. That would fix a lot problems. Competition is not only a good thing for the buyer, but its good for the seller as well.

[StoopTroup]

What I wish for is competition across state lines. Medical insurance companies should be able to compete for clients across state line. That would fix a lot problems. Competition is not only a good thing for the buyer, but its good for the seller as well.


They had chances to fix all of that. They even had the opportunity too work with President Obama and Congress and instead they rolled the dice and started backing GOP candidates to overturn Obamacare at great cost to American Taxpayers. That isn't the position I would have put my Industry in.

[soonercruiser]

And the fact that many GOP supporters don't give a damn as long as another Obama something goes down in flames is why i stated what I did in my. First post in this thread. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

You may be a long-registered Republican, but you are obviously not a real "conservative", from ready this post.
Every good conservative knows that the big picture is saving the Republic, as we know it, and the Constitution outlines it!

I have been register both ways, and voted both ways.
These days, there is only one major political party that even leans in the direction of the Constitution.

[soonercruiser]

They had chances to fix all of that. They even had the opportunity too work with President Obama and Congress and instead they rolled the dice and started backing GOP candidates to overturn Obamacare at great cost to American Taxpayers. That isn't the position I would have put my Industry in.

Another fact-less post on what really happen with the healthcare bill!
It was the Repugs who wanted inter-state competition!
The Dems obviously didn't, when it came to the secret writing sessions.

[StoopTroup]

Another fact-less post on what really happen with the healthcare bill!
It was the Repugs who wanted inter-state competition!
The Dems obviously didn't, when it came to the secret writing sessions.

If you are a revisionist with history it is.

Obama campaigned that he was going to submit legislation for Obamacare and even offerred the GOP up front to work together on it. They didn't show up and after that...the doors were indeed closed. No sense begging people who aren't headed towards a fix.

Bottom line...repealing Obamacare is the GOP's fault. They should have taken it seriously. Now they want me as a Tax Payer to vote them into office so they can spend my money to repeal their screw up?

Not happening.

[LiveLaughLove]

Yes, it's always the Republicans that don't deal in good faith, are obstructionists, are <add any other attack>. The poor Dems just want what is best for America and aren't concerned about politics and power at all. It's just those evil Republicans.

What a crock. They wanted the Republicans for cover fire and that's it.

[StoopTroup]

Yes, it's always the Republicans that don't deal in good faith, are obstructionists, are <add any other attack>. The poor Dems just want what is best for America and aren't concerned about politics and power at all. It's just those evil Republicans.

What a crock. They wanted the Republicans for cover fire and that's it.

Not always....just since Obama became POTUS. It's pretty suspicious. It's also why I think the GOP looks kind of like a bunch or racists and liars.

[LiveLaughLove]

Not always....just since Obama became POTUS. It's pretty suspicious. It's also why I think the GOP looks kind of like a bunch or racists and liars.

Well of course they do. How could a normal person see it any other way. The Republicans are racist lying backstabbing not negotiating in good faith charlotanes that do things only for political gain.

The Dems are the white knights (woops thats racist). The pure ones saving us from certain destruction at the sacrifice of their own careers.

You've convinced me. Here all along I thought they just had their strongly held political beliefs, and now to find out that it was lying racism all along. Whoda thunk it?

[TitoMorelli]

If you are a revisionist with history it is.

Obama campaigned that he was going to submit legislation for Obamacare and even offerred the GOP up front to work together on it. They didn't show up and after that...the doors were indeed closed. No sense begging people who aren't headed towards a fix.

Bottom line...repealing Obamacare is the GOP's fault. They should have taken it seriously. Now they want me as a Tax Payer to vote them into office so they can spend my money to repeal their screw up?

Not happening.

Yeah, right. Talk about being a revisionist.

The arrogant asshat that unfortunately occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue told Republican lawmakers from the get-go how much he valued their input. When in early 2009 Republicans lawmakers attempted to share their views regarding the economic stimulus plan by this administration, he dismissed them all by contemptuously stating "I won."

When he arranged for a televised health care summit in February 2010 he probably figured he was more than brilliant enough - even without a teleprompter handy - to out-debate the 'pubs and create a surge of support for ObamaCare. But after Wisconsin legislator Paul Ryan de-pants'd the emperor in front of the room, the cameras and the nation, he fled from any subsequent face-to-face's.

Instead he had his top henchmen Pelosi and Reid twist enough arms, promise enough jumbo-sized goodie bags, tell out-and-out lies to fellow Dems such as Bart Stupak, and twist procedural rules that the bill passed - barely. Yet in Obama's world (and in his recent pompous comments about the court), a bill that slipped through by a margin of seven votes out of a total of 431 cast in the House was passed by a "strong majority."

And now he tries a second time - the first being his classless temper tantrum directed at SCOTUS in the 2010 State of the Union Address - to berate or intimidate the court. And in attempting to do so makes an incredibly inane statement concerning the court's historic role in ruling on the constitutionality of laws. A tenth-grade civics student who pays attention in class would know about Marbury v. Madison, but apparently our former genius POTUS, a former constitutional-law professor, doesn't.

But keep carrying water for him, ST. Be the good soldier that you've been - unquestioning, unthinking, faithful to the very end.

[soonercruiser]

If you are a revisionist with history it is.

Obama campaigned that he was going to submit legislation for Obamacare and even offerred the GOP up front to work together on it. They didn't show up and after that...the doors were indeed closed. No sense begging people who aren't headed towards a fix.

Bottom line...repealing Obamacare is the GOP's fault. They should have taken it seriously. Now they want me as a Tax Payer to vote them into office so they can spend my money to repeal their screw up?

Not happening.

I really can't believe that you are sooooo naive to believe that line of crap!
(incredulous)

The Repugs never had a chance to provide anything of substance, when even if they believed in the process, they soon realize that they going to be shut out of the process.
The Dems didn't even need the Repugs to pass the d*** thing!

[Midtowner]

These days, there is only one major political party that even leans in the direction of the Constitution.

The libertarian party?

[IBleedCrimson]

sounds like much of the opposition is coming from a "contract" POV. A contract, as defined by our court system, is an agreement freely entered upon by two (or more) parties, both of whom understand the terms of the agreement and agree too them.

Notice how a contract is only valid if it is "freely' entered. If someone tells me to enter into a contract, or I will kill you, that contract is void, because it was not freely entered.

Obama is telling me to enter a contract with a private company, or else suffer a penalty. Some call that penalty a "tax." Is that tax/penalty considered duress? If it is, then I have only entered into that contract because of duress, and therefore the contract is void.

How is a state mandating healthcare any different? IDK. But an interesting perspective nonetheless.

edit: yes, i am drunk on a tuesday. duress me.

[LiveLaughLove]

I'm curious how the court would be setting precedent.

Isn't the whole obamacare thing setting precedent?

Just curious.

[StoopTroup]

Well of course they do. How could a normal person see it any other way. The Republicans are racist lying backstabbing not negotiating in good faith charlotanes that do things only for political gain.

The Dems are the white knights (woops thats racist). The pure ones saving us from certain destruction at the sacrifice of their own careers.

You've convinced me. Here all along I thought they just had their strongly held political beliefs, and now to find out that it was lying racism all along. Whoda thunk it?


Richard Nixon: I am not a Crook.

Bill Clinton: I did not have secs with that woman.

Yeah you and Triple L would so love to prove that I am what you think I am. The truth is if someone doesn't see things your way....they are a dirty liberal. We all know how you have painted everyone who have even tried to have a discussion with either of you.

I didn't always feel this way but it has become more of a belief for me since Dubya was POTUS. The people who say they are Conservative have zero understanding of what that really should be about. What they have done is they have decided to say they are conservative based on what some current Politicians who say they are true Conservatives say they are. It's all become quite of a mess. Even SicEm who spent years at Baylor studying Conservatism knows that the True Conservative Movement is in trouble and has been for sometime.

If I could only agree with you two that you were true conservatives....we might actually agree more than we do but you guys seem so steadfast on trying to get people to believe that everyone is a Dirty Lib if they don't think everything you say on this board should be turned into a Political Rally to oust anyone that might not be the Republican you think they should be. I actually think you both are pawns the Republican party uses to get a POTUS in the White House that isn't a Conservative.

IMO....Obama as Dems goes is more of a moderate.

Now go to Arizona where they have outlawed Mexican-American Studies but not African-American Studies and I immediately wonder how much it's going to cost the State of Arizona to get out of this situation they have put themselves in by discriminating against one minority and not going after them all with the principles they have used. When I see something as stupid as this.....I see a bunch of Republicans trying to make something work and spare no expense. To me...that is liberal.

Yeah....I know you think it's just me....and I'm really OK with whatever you think as I know just about how these things are going to go by just reading a history Book. History repeats itself and just reading the many posts you guys make on this board about what you think is conservative and who you think aren't conservatives....history repeats itself on a daily basis around here.

You guys are boring us to tears as life moves on without you.

The Conservative belief to get rid of Obamacare at any cost is a completely liberal move. I would understand taking it apart and trying to make a system that maybe could work as a National Healthcare System like Romney did for his State but that's not good enough. Since you passed on doing anything for a broken system....you now are crying about how they left you out. That is a lie and not a very pretty one. It ranks right up there with Iraq has WMDs.

[olevetonahill]

Not really. Your still forgetting Ive been a registared Republican for 33years.
Hey ST , Dont look now But LAS stole yer password.

[East Coast Bias]

Excellent post ST. Not bad for a dirty Lib. Get you helmet on the hillbilly's will be coming after you.....

[Curly Bill]

Boys, I don't know why you even bother with ST. The dudes train has left the tracks.

[Curly Bill]

Excellent post ST. Not bad for a dirty Lib. Get you helmet on the hillbilly's will be coming after you.....

Are you on the same "medication" he is?

[Midtowner]

And the childish one-liners with nothing to say start rolling in. Well done ST.

[Curly Bill]

And the childish one-liners with nothing to say start rolling in. Well done ST.

...and the hand-wringing compassion for someone that really has lost it comes rolling in. Well done Mid.

[Midtowner]

...and the hand-wringing compassion for someone that really has lost it comes rolling in. Well done Mid.

He's lost it? Okay, tell us how he's wrong and why instead of using your childish zingers. C'mon Bill, use your words.

[Curly Bill]

He's lost it? Okay, tell us how he's wrong and why instead of using your childish zingers. C'mon Bill, use your words.

I quit trying to make sense of his drivel a while's back. Besides that this is the innerwebs - you can be all serious, I'm gonna keep on with my childish zingers. You keep it real though - it's cute those of ya that take this stuff serious. ;)

[pphilfran]

Yeah, right. Talk about being a revisionist.

The arrogant asshat that unfortunately occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue told Republican lawmakers from the get-go how much he valued their input. When in early 2009 Republicans lawmakers attempted to share their views regarding the economic stimulus plan by this administration, he dismissed them all by contemptuously stating "I won."

When he arranged for a televised health care summit in February 2010 he probably figured he was more than brilliant enough - even without a teleprompter handy - to out-debate the 'pubs and create a surge of support for ObamaCare. But after Wisconsin legislator Paul Ryan de-pants'd the emperor in front of the room, the cameras and the nation, he fled from any subsequent face-to-face's.

Instead he had his top henchmen Pelosi and Reid twist enough arms, promise enough jumbo-sized goodie bags, tell out-and-out lies to fellow Dems such as Bart Stupak, and twist procedural rules that the bill passed - barely. Yet in Obama's world (and in his recent pompous comments about the court), a bill that slipped through by a margin of seven votes out of a total of 431 cast in the House was passed by a "strong majority."

And now he tries a second time - the first being his classless temper tantrum directed at SCOTUS in the 2010 State of the Union Address - to berate or intimidate the court. And in attempting to do so makes an incredibly inane statement concerning the court's historic role in ruling on the constitutionality of laws. A tenth-grade civics student who pays attention in class would know about Marbury v. Madison, but apparently our former genius POTUS, a former constitutional-law professor, doesn't.

But keep carrying water for him, ST. Be the good soldier that you've been - unquestioning, unthinking, faithful to the very end.

Go, Tito, Go!

[sappstuf]

The funny thing is that had they raised taxes $695 and given a $695 credit to those who had insurance there would have been no question about the constitutionality.

That means we're not actually trampling on individual's constitutional rights (as the treatment of the individual would have been essentially identical) but instead we're talking about a technicality.

You do realize that the only reason for the mandate and the penalty enforcing the mandate is to protect the profits of the insurance companies don't you?

It seems like such an odd position for a liberal to take... Government enforcement on private citizens to ensure profitability of private companies.

There is a reason the health insurance companies supported Obamacare one, that I know of, even submitted an amicus brief to the SCOTUS so I'm pretty sure they still feel like they will make a killing under the law.

[sappstuf]

I would just like to point out this article as a great example of liberal lunacy at the thought of Obamacare being found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS... You can practically feel the spittle hitting the back of your computer screen while reading it..

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/03/impeach-the-supreme-court-justices-if-they-overturn-health-care-law.html

If you are not a glutton for punishment, and I would completely understand, there are a few points I would like to point out..

He starts off by saying we can and should impeach justices if they are attempting to seize power.


Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles of the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle talk. During his presidency, Jefferson led the effort to oust Justice Salmon Chase, arguing that Chase was improperly seizing power. The Senate acquitted Chase in 1805, and no Justice has been impeached since, but as the Supreme Court threatens to nullify the health-care law, Jefferson’s idea is worth revisiting.

Salmon Chase didn't become a justice until 1864 which is about 50 years after Jefferson left the office... He was appointed by Abraham Lincoln.. So... Yeah. This tells me he didn't really do his homework. I point this out now, because I bet he will make a correction without saying he did.

He rambles on for quite a bit, and then makes his "first point".. Which obviously SHOULD be his strongest and most well reasoned point.. Err..


First, Congress’s authority in passing the law rests on an elementary syllogism: You don't have to drive, but if you do, the government can make you buy insurance. The logical structure at work here is that if you are going to do something (drive, for example), the government can make you purchase a commercial product (insurance, for example), so long as it has a good reason for doing so (making sure you can pay for any damage you do). That logic is obviously satisfied in the health-care context.

His "logic" completely fails at describing the situation. Federal law does not compel me to buy car insurance if I want to drive, state law does. Congress had nothing to do with it. And states do have the right to mandate things the federal government does not.

How does this guy have a job writing?

[pphilfran]

Don't worry about it Sapp...he got roasted in the comment section...

[SCOUT]

I would just like to point out this article as a great example of liberal lunacy at the thought of Obamacare being found unconstitutional by the SCOTUS... You can practically feel the spittle hitting the back of your computer screen while reading it..

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/03/impeach-the-supreme-court-justices-if-they-overturn-health-care-law.html

If you are not a glutton for punishment, and I would completely understand, there are a few points I would like to point out..

He starts off by saying we can and should impeach justices if they are attempting to seize power.



Salmon Chase didn't become a justice until 1864 which is about 50 years after Jefferson left the office... He was appointed by Abraham Lincoln.. So... Yeah. This tells me he didn't really do his homework. I point this out now, because I bet he will make a correction without saying he did.

He rambles on for quite a bit, and then makes his "first point".. Which obviously SHOULD be his strongest and most well reasoned point.. Err..



His "logic" completely fails at describing the situation. Federal law does not compel me to buy car insurance if I want to drive, state law does. Congress had nothing to do with it. And states do have the right to mandate things the federal government does not.

How does this guy have a job writing?
Doesn't his logic essentially state that if I choose to live (i.e. drive) then I have to buy insurance. Pro-Choice just took on a whole new meaning.

[jkjsooner]

You do realize that the only reason for the mandate and the penalty enforcing the mandate is to protect the profits of the insurance companies don't you?

It seems like such an odd position for a liberal to take... Government enforcement on private citizens to ensure profitability of private companies.

First off, if we have private insurance companies and they go bankrupt then that isn't helping anyone.

One point was to take away the incentive to wait until you're really sick before getting insurance. If you exclude preexisting conditions you have to do something to encourage people to get insurance.

If these two things don't mesh with your preconceived notion of what a liberal should think then, well, that just means your notions about liberals are wrong.

[Midtowner]

You do realize that the only reason for the mandate and the penalty enforcing the mandate is to protect the profits of the insurance companies don't you?

It seems like such an odd position for a liberal to take... Government enforcement on private citizens to ensure profitability of private companies.

There is a reason the health insurance companies supported Obamacare one, that I know of, even submitted an amicus brief to the SCOTUS so I'm pretty sure they still feel like they will make a killing under the law.

There's nothing really liberal about the Affordable Care Act. It's a free-market approach which most liberals would prefer the government actually manage via single-payer or just a socialized medicine plan. This is really a right-of-center compromise.

[dwarthog]

First off, if we have private insurance companies and they go bankrupt then that isn't helping anyone.

One point was to take away the incentive to wait until you're really sick before getting insurance. If you exclude preexisting conditions you have to do something to encourage people to get insurance.

If these two things don't mesh with your preconceived notion of what a liberal should think then, well, that just means your notions about liberals are wrong.

Say someone doesn't want to pay, checks the mark on their tax return indicating no insurance etc., or just decides to game the system.

What exactly are the enforcement options for the collection of that debt in this case?

[Midtowner]

Say someone doesn't want to pay, checks the mark on their tax return indicating no insurance etc., or just decides to game the system.

What exactly are the enforcement options for the collection of that debt in this case?

They pay the penalty and don't have insurance. The enforcement options would be left to the medical provider to deny all but the basic services to stabilize 'em and send 'em on their way or sue them for uncollected balances.

[dwarthog]

They pay the penalty and don't have insurance. The enforcement options would be left to the medical provider to deny all but the basic services to stabilize 'em and send 'em on their way or sue them for uncollected balances.

That whole area seems somewhat fuzzy. I have been digging around to find out exactly that, what enforcement is actually in the law to "get blood from the turnip" so to speak.

I found this with regards to the IRS's ability to collect this debt in this document.


TECHNICAL EXPLANATION OF THE REVENUE PROVISIONS
OF THE “RECONCILIATON ACT OF 2010,”
AS AMENDED, IN COMBINATION WITH THE
“PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT”




C. Excise Tax on Individuals Without Essential Health Benefits Coverage
(sec. 1501 of the Senate amendment and new sec. 5000A of the Code)


The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential
coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is an excise tax that is assessed in the
same manner as an assessable penalty under the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of
2the Code. As a result, it is assessable without regard to the restrictions of section
6213(b). Although assessable and collectible under the Code, the IRS authority to use
certain collection methods is limited. Specifically, the filing of notices of liens and levies
otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this
penalty. In addition, the statute waives criminal penalties for non-compliance with the
requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage. However, the authority to offset
refunds or credits is not limited by this provision.



I do wonder however, the kind of noise that will be made if they start digging into EIC credit money....

[Midtowner]

I do wonder however, the kind of noise that will be made if they start digging into EIC credit money....

Well you don't get refundable tax credits until your tax liability has been paid, so that'd be affected for sure. Seriously though, what kind of jerk parent doesn't get insurance for their kids? You either qualify for Medicaid or you presumably can afford insurance and just need to reassess your financial priorities.

[dwarthog]

Well you don't get refundable tax credits until your tax liability has been paid, so that'd be affected for sure. Seriously though, what kind of jerk parent doesn't get insurance for their kids? You either qualify for Medicaid or you presumably can afford insurance and just need to reassess your financial priorities.

I am in agreement with you 100% here.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Well you don't get refundable tax credits until your tax liability has been paid, so that'd be affected for sure. Seriously though, what kind of jerk parent doesn't get insurance for their kids? You either qualify for Medicaid or you presumably can afford insurance and just need to reassess your financial priorities.So, you're asking for personal responsibility eh?...

[Midtowner]

So, you're asking for personal responsibility eh?...

Yep. And if you fail at personal responsibility, someone needs to shove it down your throat.

Not having medical insurance on your kids means that you fail as a parent. Do not pass Go, do not collect your EIC.

[Sooner5030]

something I haven't thought about: Do expats have to pay the penalty even if they are in a plan in their current residing country?

[soonercruiser]

Doesn't his logic essentially state that if I choose to live (i.e. drive) then I have to buy insurance. Pro-Choice just took on a whole new meaning.

Take that one step further please......millions of people have lived, and lived well WITHOUT health insurance, thank you!

[soonercruiser]

There's nothing really liberal about the Affordable Care Act. It's a free-market approach which most liberals would prefer the government actually manage via single-payer or just a socialized medicine plan. This is really a right-of-center compromise.

Get this guys!
Obamacare is a free-market program!!!!
Free markets call for open competition - even among states!
Duh!
The goal is to put all insurance companies out of business, until everyone is on the government plan.

[Midtowner]

What government plan is that?

Under the ACA, if insurance companies go out of business, it's their own fault.

[sappstuf]

There's nothing really liberal about the Affordable Care Act. It's a free-market approach which most liberals would prefer the government actually manage via single-payer or just a socialized medicine plan. This is really a right-of-center compromise.

Free market?? Sure, I guess. If you consider forcing young people to buy insurance that they don't want or need free market...

Obamacare forces young people to not just buy catastrophic coverage, but full comprehensive coverage for everything(including things they could never possibly need). This makes the insurance cost to be wildly more expensive than it should be. So Obamacare created the problem and the only way to fix the problem was to mandate people buy coverage.

And you think that is free market... Wow.

[sappstuf]

They pay the penalty and don't have insurance. The enforcement options would be left to the medical provider to deny all but the basic services to stabilize 'em and send 'em on their way or sue them for uncollected balances.

Which means what, when they cannot recup their expenses from them? According to the CBO 30 million people still won't have insurance.. Come on, you are so close to admitting why this entire bill was worthless and doesn't solve anything...

It is a fairly amazing accomplishment that Obamacare is going to to cost average Americans thousands of dollars a year in additional insurance costs and still not solve the underlying problem.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

It is a fairly amazing accomplishment that Obamacare is going to to cost average Americans thousands of dollars a year in additional insurance costs and still not solve the underlying problem.

Yes, but it accomplishes O'Bummer and the Progressives primary mission, make the most possible number of Americans indebted to the government so they can be told the "correct" thing to do and have to follow the will of government. Utopians and Wilson always think/thought they know more and better how to handle our lives than we do...

[East Coast Bias]

You do realize that the only reason for the mandate and the penalty enforcing the mandate is to protect the profits of the insurance companies don't you?

It seems like such an odd position for a liberal to take... Government enforcement on private citizens to ensure profitability of private companies.

There is a reason the health insurance companies supported Obamacare one, that I know of, even submitted an amicus brief to the SCOTUS so I'm pretty sure they still feel like they will make a killing under the law.

This is a good example of attempting to make the facts fit an ideology. Think about what drives the cost up? Its not people buying insurance. Can we all agree that people using the emergency room and bankruptcy courts to secure health care is the real elephant in the room? I get it that you are opposed to government involvement, but bringing more paying customers into the market is a no brainer for reducing costs. Opening up markets for the insurance companies in multi-states might help, sure, but they make their money either way. They are making money now by spreading cost to a smaller group. The reason they are on-board with the ACA is because it brings them more customers and averts single-payer which converts health-care to not for profit.
I am open to other ideas, I like some of what Pphil has proposed, but most of what we hear from the Pubs tells me they are happy with the current system. The only winners with the current system are the insurance companies and providers.....

[East Coast Bias]

And again as Mid has repeated several times: ACA is not a liberal program, what we want is single-payer. This is a starting point for change, an attempt at compromise.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

And again as Mid has repeated several times: ACA is not a liberal program, what we want is single-payer. This is a starting point for change, an attempt at compromise.

No, we don't want a single payer....

[sappstuf]

This is a good example of attempting to make the facts fit an ideology. Think about what drives the cost up? Its not people buying insurance. Can we all agree that people using the emergency room and bankruptcy courts to secure health care is the real elephant in the room? I get it that you are opposed to government involvement, but bringing more paying customers into the market is a no brainer for reducing costs. Opening up markets for the insurance companies in multi-states might help, sure, but they make their money either way. They are making money now by spreading cost to a smaller group. The reason they are on-board with the ACA is because it brings them more customers and averts single-payer which converts health-care to not for profit.
I am open to other ideas, I like some of what Pphil has proposed, but most of what we hear from the Pubs tells me they are happy with the current system. The only winners with the current system are the insurance companies and providers.....

Correct, but in Obamacare it is the mandate that is driving up costs, specifically for young people. By and large, young people don't get sick... They need catastrophic coverage and nothing else. But guess what? There isn't much money in that. So Obamacare forces them to buy expensive coverage above what their needs are to cover the other costs of the plan. This is fact. It is not ideology. And it isn't emergency room or bankruptcy doing it, it is Obamacare doing it. The only defense the government could come up with in front of the SCOTUS was that young people will be paid back when they are older... It is an admission that young people are paying way more than they should be under Obamacare. And like Social Security, if I was 27, I wouldn't be holding my breath....

If by "brings them more customers" you mean forces under threat of law, you are correct.

Single-payer was never going to happen even with the majorities the Dems had, it isn't worth talking about.

[pphilfran]

This is a good example of attempting to make the facts fit an ideology. Think about what drives the cost up? Its not people buying insurance. Can we all agree that people using the emergency room and bankruptcy courts to secure health care is the real elephant in the room? I get it that you are opposed to government involvement, but bringing more paying customers into the market is a no brainer for reducing costs. Opening up markets for the insurance companies in multi-states might help, sure, but they make their money either way. They are making money now by spreading cost to a smaller group. The reason they are on-board with the ACA is because it brings them more customers and averts single-payer which converts health-care to not for profit.
I am open to other ideas, I like some of what Pphil has proposed, but most of what we hear from the Pubs tells me they are happy with the current system. The only winners with the current system are the insurance companies and providers.....

Thanks...

It is a massive problem that has no easy solutions...

My simplistic solution, by themselves, probably wouldn't do squat....

We must not confuse costs with constitutionality...I don't think costs/cost savings should be in the debate...

[jkjsooner]

Take that one step further please......millions of people have lived, and lived well WITHOUT health insurance, thank you!

I knew a guy who made this argument about himself. He was around 30 at the time and "not sickly" so he didn't need insurance. We all told him he was crazy. Then he had a string of seizures, hospital trips, etc., and before you knew it he declared bankruptcy. That means we all paid for his health costs.

[pphilfran]

I knew a guy who made this argument about himself. He was around 30 at the time and "not sickly" so he didn't need insurance. We all told him he was crazy. Then he had a string of seizures, hospital trips, etc., and before you knew it he declared bankruptcy. That means we all paid for his health costs.

It is not about cost...I could dream up a whole lot of stuff that could save hundreds of billions but they would not be constitutional...

[Midtowner]

Yes, but it accomplishes O'Bummer and the Progressives primary mission, make the most possible number of Americans indebted to the government so they can be told the "correct" thing to do and have to follow the will of government. Utopians and Wilson always think/thought they know more and better how to handle our lives than we do...

When is it correct not to buy insurance?

--unless you think it's "correct" to finance your illnesses through the bankruptcy code.

[pphilfran]

When is it correct not to buy insurance?

--unless you think it's "correct" to finance your illnesses through the bankruptcy code.

It is not about good or bad decisions...or bankruptcy....

When you are born you are not required to work, buy a house, pay taxes (you don't have to work), or actually do anything...those are all choice you make...but you must have heath insurance....

[SCOUT]

This is a good example of attempting to make the facts fit an ideology. Think about what drives the cost up? Its not people buying insurance. Can we all agree that people using the emergency room and bankruptcy courts to secure health care is the real elephant in the room? I get it that you are opposed to government involvement, but bringing more paying customers into the market is a no brainer for reducing costs. Opening up markets for the insurance companies in multi-states might help, sure, but they make their money either way. They are making money now by spreading cost to a smaller group. The reason they are on-board with the ACA is because it brings them more customers and averts single-payer which converts health-care to not for profit.
I am open to other ideas, I like some of what Pphil has proposed, but most of what we hear from the Pubs tells me they are happy with the current system. The only winners with the current system are the insurance companies and providers.....
Your assumption that more people in the fold will reduce cost by spreading risk is one that I have heard many times. On the surface it truly makes sense. However, another argument for ACA kind of deflates that point. It has been said that ACA needs to be enacted so that people with very costly medical issues can have coverage. The assumption in the first argument is that the people being added to the pool of risk will have the same (or less) medical costs than the average person currently in the pool. The second argument points out the reality that the costs are more likely to go up with the addition of those not already included. That added cost will be spread among the people who already have insurance.

I agree pphilfran. This is a massive problem and there are no easy answers. My opinion is that more government involvement isn't going to result in significant improvements. My visit to the Department of Motor Vehicles yesterday really reinforce that belief.

[StoopTroup]

It did for the credit card industry. Increasing Gov't involvement forced them to quit loan sharking and approve only good loans that get repaid.

[pphilfran]

If is good to know that we will never have another credit card default....

[TheHumanAlphabet]

When is it correct not to buy insurance?

--unless you think it's "correct" to finance your illnesses through the bankruptcy code.

This is about way more than just buying insurance. If it were only that, I would be inclined to agree with you. This is about losing liberties and giving the government more power to control our lives and money.

I think everyone should have health insurance, I just don't want to subsidize it, I subsidize enough tax nonpayers today, I don't need to put any more of my hard earned money (MY MONEY) to dead beats who sit around all day, do nothing but collect a government check. The Johnson experiment is a failed effort and needs to be stopped. Perhaps if the deadbeats figured out they no longer had a welfare check coming their way, they would get off their arse and work to eat... No one is guaranteed anything in life...

[soonercruiser]

I knew a guy who made this argument about himself. He was around 30 at the time and "not sickly" so he didn't need insurance. We all told him he was crazy. Then he had a string of seizures, hospital trips, etc., and before you knew it he declared bankruptcy. That means we all paid for his health costs.

Kinda like gambling, huh?
Should we outlaw gambling, and just start a government program to make everyone a government winner $$$???????

[soonercruiser]

Back on subjest.....since you guys have deviated away from Obama's threats to the SCOTUS...

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/Obamanicelittlesupremecourt.jpg

[sappstuf]

http://global.nationalreview.com/images/photoshop_040512_A.jpg

[OU_Sooners75]

There's lots of solid legal analysis and discussion of policy in this thread.

The President is alluding to the fact that there is no case law limiting the scope of the commerce clause with regard to actual channels and instrumentalities of commerce. If the Court was to suddenly rule that there is a limit in compelling citizens to participate in commerce, then that would be legislation from the bench. I guess for some, it's okay to legislate from the bench so long as you agree with it. If not, then you're talking about activist judges who are unelected, etc. In other words, it's not about principle, it's about winning.

What's so different between the SCOTUS making up the Miranda rights out of thin air and ruling that the feds can't compel you to participate in commerce? Which one would follow originalism and which one is interpreting the Constitution as a living/breathing document? I gots to know.


Where in teh hell in "ObamaCare" does it say that it compells individuals to get the insurance?

No sir, the law says it is mandatory to get it. In other words, it is telling the citizens of this country they must participate in it in some form. And if not, you will be fined in some manner.

Finally, it is not entire law that is being challenged here. It is the individualized mandate that is being challenged as being unconstitutional....which it is!

[cleller]

What is the plan for the individual that chooses not to work, but elects to live with a female in a public housing project. He earns some money thru theft and/or drug sales. In any five year span he will usually need one ambulance ride and hospital visit due to injuries suffered during criminal activity, plus another 2-3 emergency room visits.

Does he have to buy a policy, too? If he doesn't, what will be his penalty?

[jkjsooner]

It is not about cost...I could dream up a whole lot of stuff that could save hundreds of billions but they would not be constitutional...


Kinda like gambling, huh?
Should we outlaw gambling, and just start a government program to make everyone a government winner $$$???????

Neither of these statements have anything at all to do with what I posted. My statement was just to show the folly of assuming that millions of young people live just fine without insurance.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Neither of these statements have anything at all to do with what I posted. My statement was just to show the folly of assuming that millions of young people live just fine without insurance.

Hence the penaties to get them to buy insurance to even out the odds and hits that the deadbeats and infirmed cause to the health pool. For this to work, the penalties need to be consicatory and I don't think people in the U.S. are ready for that.

[pphilfran]

I probably misread your intent based on this statement...

"That means we all paid for his health costs. "

[jkjsooner]

I probably misread your intent based on this statement...

"That means we all paid for his health costs. "

Well, I do have my opinions and I've expressed them in other posts. I do think that the law is constitutional as I feel that it is in line with many things our government already does. I also think the fact that we must provide basic emergency care is relevant.

But that wasn't the point of that one post. I tried to keep that post focused only on what I stated in it but I understand your response was triggered by more than that one post.

But, anyway, all the other stuff aside, I still say it's foolish to think that you don't need insurance just because you're young and it many cases we do pay the price for those who are so foolish.

[jkjsooner]

Kinda like gambling, huh?
Should we outlaw gambling, and just start a government program to make everyone a government winner $$$???????

Okay, I suppose I'm going to let you drag me back into this. My point of the one post wasn't about the healthcare bill but since you questioned me on it I'll go back to it...

It is a gamble to not have insurance but that's where the analogy ends. In healthcare, when a person gambles, loses, and declares bankruptcy we all pay the bills. Specifically, those of us who aren't gambling pay the majority of the bills. It's not exactly the same as Vegas.

[jkjsooner]

Frankly, I'm not the biggest fan of the affordable care act. I do, however, think we need major reforms in our healthcare and the biggest is around pre-existing conditions (which is the main reason for the mandate). We don't necessarily have to remove all preexisting condition checks but there needs to be some reform such as:

1. When a child becomes an adult and obtains insurance, the insurance should not be able to consider illnesses that occurred while the child was under his/her parent's insurance (or really even if they did not have insurance).

2. Insurance companies should not be able to drop the insured for getting sick or really for any reason. The way they've behaved in some cases really defeats the purpose of having insurance.

3. If a person moves from one insurance to another (forced job change, company changed policy, etc.) and maintains insurance coverage, they should be excluded from any preexisting conditions that arose while the person was insured by the previous insurance company.

[pphilfran]

Frankly, I'm not the biggest fan of the affordable care act. I do, however, think we need major reforms in our healthcare and the biggest is around pre-existing conditions (which is the main reason for the mandate). We don't necessarily have to remove all preexisting condition checks but there needs to be some reform such as:

1. When a child becomes an adult and obtains insurance, the insurance should not be able to consider illnesses that occurred while the child was under his/her parent's insurance (or really even if they did not have insurance).

2. Insurance companies should not be able to drop the insured for getting sick or really for any reason. The way they've behaved in some cases really defeats the purpose of having insurance.

3. If a person moves from one insurance to another (forced job change, company changed policy, etc.) and maintains insurance coverage, they should be excluded from any preexisting conditions that arose while the person was insured by the previous insurance company.

Those three items shouldn't take thousands of pages of legislation...

[pphilfran]

Well, I do have my opinions and I've expressed them in other posts. I do think that the law is constitutional as I feel that it is in line with many things our government already does. I also think the fact that we must provide basic emergency care is relevant.

But that wasn't the point of that one post. I tried to keep that post focused only on what I stated in it but I understand your response was triggered by more than that one post.

But, anyway, all the other stuff aside, I still say it's foolish to think that you don't need insurance just because you're young and it many cases we do pay the price for those who are so foolish.

It is not in line with any other legislation...

We already provide basic emergency service to all...

And your point about being young and foolish and declining insurance causing us to pay for the cost of the care is a non starter in regards to the legality of the legislation...

[jkjsooner]

It is not in line with any other legislation...

We've gone through this quite a few times. I think it is in line with many other things we do to encourage certain behaviors via the tax code.


We already provide basic emergency service to all...

That was my point. If we're going to provide for it then we need to have a way for the uninsured to pay their share.

Given, this was only a secondary purpose of the individual mandate. The point was to get rid of preexisting conditions without creating a loophole that would encourage some people to drop their insurance and wait until they're sick to pick it back up.


And your point about being young and foolish and declining insurance causing us to pay for the cost of the care is a non starter in regards to the legality of the legislation...

Again, I wasn't making that point (at least not in the post you're referring to). I was simply responding to a post that said plenty of people live just fine without insurance.

Putting aside the ACA, wouldn't you agree that it's foolish to assume that a 20 something doesn't need insurance? Wouldn't you also agree that many of those same people have been a burden on society when they have gotten sick.

[pphilfran]

We've gone through this quite a few times. I think it is in line with many other things we do to encourage certain behaviors via the tax code.



That was my point. If we're going to provide for it then we need to have a way for the uninsured to pay their share.

Given, this was only a secondary purpose of the individual mandate. The point was to get rid of preexisting conditions without creating a loophole that would encourage some people to drop their insurance and wait until they're sick to pick it back up.



Again, I wasn't making that point (at least not in the post you're referring to). I was simply responding to a post that said plenty of people live just fine without insurance.

Putting aside the ACA, wouldn't you agree that it's foolish to assume that a 20 something doesn't need insurance? Wouldn't you also agree that many of those same people have been a burden on society when they have gotten sick.

I think everyone should have insurance...

[sappstuf]

Frankly, I'm not the biggest fan of the affordable care act. I do, however, think we need major reforms in our healthcare and the biggest is around pre-existing conditions (which is the main reason for the mandate). We don't necessarily have to remove all preexisting condition checks but there needs to be some reform such as:

1. When a child becomes an adult and obtains insurance, the insurance should not be able to consider illnesses that occurred while the child was under his/her parent's insurance (or really even if they did not have insurance).

2. Insurance companies should not be able to drop the insured for getting sick or really for any reason. The way they've behaved in some cases really defeats the purpose of having insurance.

3. If a person moves from one insurance to another (forced job change, company changed policy, etc.) and maintains insurance coverage, they should be excluded from any preexisting conditions that arose while the person was insured by the previous insurance company.

Sweet.. I will get insurance... Then stop paying.

[okie52]

Sweet.. I will get insurance... Then stop paying.

It's the thought that counts.

[sappstuf]

It's the thought that counts.

I don't want those mean nasty insurance companies taking advantage of me..

[okie52]

I don't want those mean nasty insurance companies taking advantage of me..

I'm channeling my capitalistic efforts through oil and gas now....insurance was just too dirty.

[sappstuf]

I'm channeling my capitalistic efforts through oil and gas now....insurance was just too dirty.

You should dabble in astroturf.. Mano e mano with The Profit!

Is it too early to start thinking about lunch towards the end of July sometime?

[okie52]

You should dabble in astroturf.. Mano e mano with The Profit!

Is it too early to start thinking about lunch towards the end of July sometime?

That would be good...but profit left the board 4-5 months ago.

[StoopTroup]

I don't want those mean nasty insurance companies taking advantage of me..

Just because you pay for insurance doesn't mean you have to use it. You could keep on acting like you don't have it.

[jkjsooner]

Sweet.. I will get insurance... Then stop paying.

Shortening my original post. When I said "for any reason" I didn't mean that they can't drop someone for not paying their premiums.

I thought that would be understood but I guess not.

[sappstuf]

...

Edited since OP changed response.

[sappstuf]

If is good to know that we will never have another credit card default....

Pfffttt, for that to happen the companies would have to start getting back into subprime lending.

Uh oh..


But as financial institutions recover from the losses on loans made to troubled borrowers, some of the largest lenders to the less than creditworthy, including Capital One and GM Financial, are trying to woo them back, while HSBC and JPMorgan Chase are among those tiptoeing again into subprime lending.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/business/lenders-returning-to-the-lucrative-subprime-market.html

[jkjsooner]

Pfffttt, for that to happen the companies would have to start getting back into subprime lending.

Uh oh..



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/business/lenders-returning-to-the-lucrative-subprime-market.html

And, let me guess, when it ultimately fails again RLIMC will again start claiming that the government forced HSBC and JPMC into making these subprime loans...

Maybe the talking point then will be that we created a moral hazard by bailing them out the first time. If so then maybe RLIMC and I will finally agree.

The funny thing is that I think the owners (i.e. stock holders) of these firms lost their shirts. In that way we did not really create a moral hazard. However, the real power in the corporations are the BOD and executives and they didn't pay a price. Executives are still compensated for taking excessive risks for short term gains.