Court rRuling on Obamacare
The US Supreme Court has 2 monumental rulings regarding the constitutionality of The Affordable Care Act signed into law in 2010:
1) Does the Federal government have the authority to require its citizens
to purchase health insurance, the so-called mandate?
2) Does the federal government have the authority to require states to
expand Medicaid as a condition of receiving federal health care funding, the so-called all or none coercion doctrine?
Item 2 is far reaching. AFA will provide millions of low income adults with health insurance and not cost any state a dime until 2017. If you're rooting for the Court to overturn Obamacare you probably already have insurance for your family and don't give a shit about anyone but yourself.
But I don't want to stifle debate with my opinion.
http://thirdbranch.update.crooksandl...s-all-or-nothi
Re: Court rRuling on Obamacare
This ought to be interesting...........
Re: Court rRuling on Obamacare
Quote:
Originally Posted by
flabbybody
If you're rooting for the Court to overturn Obamacare you probably already have insurance for your family and don't give a shit about anyone but yourself.
Pathetic, no its not about giving a shit about anyone its a little thing called the Constitution of The United States. And how NO party has the right to trample on it the way this administration has attempted and successfully done.
The founding documents of this country supersede the need of any special interest. Get your head out of your ass, and discover what made this country what it is.
Re: Court rRuling on Obamacare
This item was on the news here in the UK this morning, it will make for fascinating reading this side of the Atlantic too, as our own coalition government has just passed into law yet another Health Reform Act, parts of which give private enterprise an entry into the national service which diehards don't approve of -frankly because the Govt doesn't have, or can't -or won't- find the money to fund the whole of the national health service.
That aside, Faldur, when you refer to a 'special interest' I don't understand what or who you mean. Is health care really a 'special interest', or is it not of strategic importance to the population of the USA as a whole? I mean, its not like transexual porn, for example, which I would consider a 'special interest'.
I see this as part of a global debate about the growth of the elderly as a segment of the population with the health implications, medically and financially.
Re: Court rRuling on Obamacare
If Obamacare is indeed overturned what will become of the car insurance mandate?
Re: Court rRuling on Obamacare
Quote:
1) Does the Federal government have the authority to require its citizens
to purchase health insurance, the so-called mandate?
2) Does the federal government have the authority to require states to
expand Medicaid as a condition of receiving federal health care funding, the so-called all or none coercion doctrine?
Is that second issue even part of this particular case? Because that's pretty weak. Of course the feds have the authority to put conditions on receiving federal funding.
There's another issue they have to look at. One whole day's arguments were dedicated to severability. The real question here, the big one, is whether the funding mechanism can be dealt with as an entirely separate matter. This is where the Obama administration has pushed the hardest, because the Republican mandate is the only part of the law that can be seriously challenged. Get it severed & & I don't think the administration cares whether they win or lose because they never wanted the individual mandate in the first place. Personally, I'm all for dumping it, & I hope it's far reaching enough to get rid of all mandatory insurance laws. Losing the Republican mandate ju8st means that the public option is back in play.
Re: Court rRuling on Obamacare
I think the same Supreme Court that gave you Bush in 2000 will take poor people's health insurance in 2012.
Re: Court rRuling on Obamacare
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Stavros
Is health care really a 'special interest', or is it not of strategic importance to the population of the USA as a whole?
In this country Stavros, health care insurance is something responsible citizens buy for themselves, or negotiate into their employment. It ensures various levels of there health care costs are covered. The majority of Americans support the continuation of this in the private sector.
"Special Interests", I probably miss-used the term. Here lately we call the small groups of people screaming for free items, and demanding everyone else pay for it, "special interests".
Re: Court rRuling on Obamacare
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Faldur
people screaming for free items, and demanding everyone else pay for it
They're screaming because the ambulance just bought them to the ER, and if they don't have any money, you and I pay for it.
Re: Court rRuling on Obamacare
The "special interest" here is the insurance companies. I don't see why anybody owes them a damn thing. Since they managed to take full control of the healthcare industry in the '80s, costs have risen exponentially until it's now 1/6 of the entire US economy. None of this is ever going to come under control until we stop treating the insurance industry as if it has an entitlement.