Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[OaklandA's]

Furthermore, I find it extremely amusing that the supposedly infallible White House and the democrat majority at time (1) did not include the severability clause which could have salvaged a portion of Obamacare but they were hellbent on ramming the bill through with Kennedy's replacement (2) placed a premium on the individual mandate, since it was the only way to entice the insurance monopoly to offer them greater coverage for pre-existing conditions and temporary price controls.

I don't see why you find it amusing. The goal is to provide health care to everyone. I don't see how that can be accomplished without either an individual mandate or a universal single-payer system.

[DMT]

I don't see why you find it amusing. The goal is to provide health care to everyone. I don't see how that can be accomplished without either an individual mandate or a universal single-payer system.

The latter being a much better solution on pretty much every level except in our current political system.

[PaleoMan]

I don't see why you find it amusing. The goal is to provide health care to everyone. I don't see how that can be accomplished without either an individual mandate or a universal single-payer system.

The silver bullet to universal accessibility is market reflective cost controls which doesn't include HMOs and PPOs. To think that in America today, health care is primarily dependent on one's employer as well as a third party in the HMO is ludicrous. What is being done with the so-called Affordable Health Care Act or a universal payer system is that it is actually increasing costs down the long end of the curve with the mass subsidizations. We need to cull these government proxies who profit almost exclusively from the monopolization of this industry and get back to individual insurance programs which are primarily tethered to a confidential contract between a physician and the patient.

[onejayhawk]

I don't see why you find it amusing. The goal is to provide health care to everyone. I don't see how that can be accomplished without either an individual mandate or a universal single-payer system.

Why do you find it strange that someone would consider your solution tobe worse than the problem?

J

[GwynnInTheHall]

Why do you find it strange that someone would consider your solution tobe worse than the problem?

J

The solution at hand may indeed be worse than the problem, but doing something is better than doing nothing even if that something sucks.

Everyone has the right to affordable healthcare.

Make Medicare available to all and ASSURE it's continued existence or better yet, take the profit out of healthcare and Pharma.


If they'd sit and waited, the people making money off it would sit there too.

No one rushes to do the right thing when there's money to be made buy stalling. Not in this country at least.

[Judge Jude]

anyone notice the scary-stupid comments Obama made on Monday?

http://factcheck.org/2012/04/obama-eats-his-words/

"President Obama is being forced to modify his absurdly wrong claim that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to strike down the new health care law.

He made that statement April 2 in a news conference:

Obama, April 2: Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

As any number of others were quick to point out, there is ample precedent for the Supreme Court voiding laws passed by Congress. In fact, overturning unconstitutional laws has been part of the Supreme Court’s job description for more than two centuries.

And the health care law wasn’t passed by a “strong” majority, either. In the House, the final vote was 219 to 212, with all Republicans and even 34 Democrats voting in opposition."

...........

even the backpedaling now seems to be a struggle.
what the heck was he talking about?
there are talking points out now about the "unprecedented" part and "he really meant" this and that.
what did he mean by "strong majority?"

[onejayhawk]

The solution at hand may indeed be worse than the problem, but doing something is better than doing nothing even if that something sucks.
You contradict yourself in one sentance. Bravo.

Everyone has the right to affordable healthcare.
Which talking point is that?

Make Medicare available to all and ASSURE it's continued existence or better yet, take the profit out of healthcare and Pharma.
So you advocate slave labor.

If they'd sit and waited, the people making money off it would sit there too.
What is your point?

No one rushes to do the right thing when there's money to be made buy stalling. Not in this country at least.
By your own admission in line one, it is not the right thing. It is doing something wrong to avoid doing nothing.

A ball, a foul ball and three swinging strikes, with the ball on the tee. You need to do better.

J

[nots]

anyone notice the scary-stupid comments Obama made on Monday?

http://factcheck.org/2012/04/obama-eats-his-words/

"President Obama is being forced to modify his absurdly wrong claim that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to strike down the new health care law.

He made that statement April 2 in a news conference:

Obama, April 2: Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

As any number of others were quick to point out, there is ample precedent for the Supreme Court voiding laws passed by Congress. In fact, overturning unconstitutional laws has been part of the Supreme Court’s job description for more than two centuries.

And the health care law wasn’t passed by a “strong” majority, either. In the House, the final vote was 219 to 212, with all Republicans and even 34 Democrats voting in opposition."

...........

even the backpedaling now seems to be a struggle.
what the heck was he talking about?
there are talking points out now about the "unprecedented" part and "he really meant" this and that.
what did he mean by "strong majority?"

I didn't see the whole speech--only a few soundbites so maybe I shouldn't weigh in but what I did see was certainly eyebrow raising. There really has to be an underlying ulterior reason for saying that, because as a Constitutional Law person, he absolutely can not believe that about the SC.
Probably firing the base up ahead of the Health Care law being struck down or else firing a warning shot across the bow of the SS Kennedy.

[onejayhawk]

I didn't see the whole speech--only a few soundbites so maybe I shouldn't weigh in but what I did see was certainly eyebrow raising. There really has to be an underlying ulterior reason for saying that, because as a Constitutional Law person, he absolutely can not believe that about the SC.
Probably firing the base up ahead of the Health Care law being struck down or else firing a warning shot across the bow of the SS Kennedy.

President Obama has been openly critical of the Constitution, saying it does nothing, or not enough, to provide for people.

J

[chancellor]

anyone notice the scary-stupid comments Obama made on Monday?

http://factcheck.org/2012/04/obama-eats-his-words/

"President Obama is being forced to modify his absurdly wrong claim that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to strike down the new health care law.

He made that statement April 2 in a news conference:

Obama, April 2: Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

I'm sure this was just political pandering and posturing, but he stepped into it badly. One of the federal judges - fifth circuit, I believe - pushed back extremely hard.

Romney has by any measure made his own series of pretty foolish remarks, but the depth of stupid in this one by Obama really sets the bar to a new low.

[PaleoMan]

I didn't see the whole speech--only a few soundbites so maybe I shouldn't weigh in but what I did see was certainly eyebrow raising. There really has to be an underlying ulterior reason for saying that, because as a Constitutional Law person, he absolutely can not believe that about the SC.
Probably firing the base up ahead of the Health Care law being struck down or else firing a warning shot across the bow of the SS Kennedy.

Since Kagan was solicitor general, I speculate she informed the President of the court's decision already. Now he has ramped up the rhetoric with full intent of incorporating this meme into his campaign push. Obama has to deal with many angry lobbyists and irate advocacy groups after this bill is reversed, so I can understand his frustration.

[B-Fly]

I think the President was trying to say that it would roll back a lot of precedent on Congressional powers under the Constitution. LOL @ the talking points about the President being a Constitutional Law professor who should thus have known how patently unconstitutional this law was from the start, or the ridiculous assertion that he disdains the Constitution. There is a ton of Supreme Court precedent for the precept that Congress's power to regulate industries and markets with tremendous impact on interstate commerce is incredibly broad, particularly where the federal government is spending a ton of money in that same industry/market. Striking down the Health Care law would thus run contrary to nearly a century of Supreme Court precedent in cases involving Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause and Spending Clause.

So yes, it has been established for well over two centuries that the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down laws passed by Congress (by whatever margin) as unconstitutional. But striking down this law would be an unprecedented retreat from nearly a century of Supreme Court jurisprudence.

[Moonlight J]

I'm still smh at a SC justice calling the healthcare act Obamacare.

[Judge Jude]

speaking of talking points, B-Fly forgot to tackle this one:

what did he mean by "strong majority?"

and is it not odd for Obama to be pulling this stunt in the middle of the process - and this latest after thumbing his nose in 2010 at the sitting Court during a State of the Union speech, making assertions that were not agreed-upon facts at all?

I find it all a bit odd for an ex-Constitutional law professor (he also referenced the wrong 1930s case when he tried to flex his 'detail' muscles).

.........

"I'm still smh at a SC justice calling the healthcare act Obamacare."

agreed

I think people who say "Obamacare" should be smacked with a bat...

[onejayhawk]

I'm still smh at a SC justice calling the healthcare act Obamacare.

Yet not at the purchase mandate. Odd priorities there.

J