Hhs Upheld By Supreme Court

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1340912546' post='2450079']
False. Roe v. Wade was not a law enacted by Congress than can be repealed or overturned. It was a finding from a Supreme Court case. Get it together little brat
[/quote]

I missed you.

[kujo]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1340918456' post='2450107']

I missed you.
[/quote]

Careful, Gaga.

[Anomaly]

The SCOTUS are law proffesionals with decades of experience. Not all of them agreed, but they came to a majority opinion that most of the law is allowable within the framework of the US Constitution. Agree or disagree with the result, you still can't say it was an unreasonable decision within the parameters of their jurisdiction.

This sort of thing happens when people think 'something must be done to change things', and look to the Government to make the change for them. Obamacare is the Federal Government's actions to 'do something' about the healthcare system. It won't be cheaper or better, but more people will have their health care payments adminstered through the Government or by their rules. It will be paid for by taxes on everyone. If the Government can't get enough taxes or borrow enough money from China, they will create the rules that limits who gets what treatments based on their guidelines. Insurance companies will always make money. Doctors will always be paid. People will always get sick and die. Politicians will always be exempt from the bad consequences. Nothing has really changed, other than the Government will take the maoney and choices away from people who can afford choices, and give limited care and choices to those who can't afford choices (wether from inablity to work or lack of motivation to work).

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1340917829' post='2450106']
So yeah, a fine can be a tax.
[/quote]

A tax on what? Existing??

[Basilisa Marie]

I am super impressed with Chief Justice Roberts. I think it's pretty clear from his written opinion that he thinks the healthcare act absolutely smells of elderberries, but he's intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that it's constitutional as a tax, which was, in fact, the government's third argument for how it's constitutional. He repeated over and over again that it was the Supreme Court's job to determine constitutionality, not whether or not a policy is good.

Plus this way, when the HHS Mandate actually DOES get struck down, it won't be due to the commerce clause or tax law, but actual religious freedom issues, so that there will be no way the government can pull crap like this again. So in a way, he's doing us a favor.


Edit: He even mentioned that reading the law so it's constitutional as a tax isn't the most natural way to read the law. So it probably would have been struck down completely if the government hadn't argued for it to be interpreted as a tax.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Basilisa Marie

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1340907654' post='2450033']
Seriously, could you shut the little Sean Hannity dwelling in you head up for like five floopying seconds and act like grown up? The constituion is not a logically perfect model. There are a number of really difficult issues at stake here and there was no totally clear solution to this suit. I do not like Obamacare. And I took the constitutional arguments against it far more seriously than almost any other communist pinko pansy that I know. This bill was arguably unconstitutional. It was also arguably constitutional. The USSC did a good job here. As Bro Adam pointed out they called a spade a spade in showing that this was basically a tax. By doing so they avoided the sticky issue of how the commerce clause is limited. They made a very reasonable ruling out of a very complicated issue. Just because you dislike it doesn't mean that Roberts failed you. His job as a judge, and this is something conservatives used o know, is not to be a reflexively partisan figure. That's not to say that Scalia is a reflexively partisan actor. His concerns are also very reasonable. My complaint isn't with any of the conservative justices here. It's with people like you.
[/quote]



Fair enough. I retract my previous post.

[Seven77]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1340910971' post='2450053']
Today was about Obamacare. Not the HHS mandate.
[/quote]

[quote name='GeorgiiMichael' timestamp='1340908728' post='2450040']
Just so it's clear, the Supreme Court DID NOT RULE ON THE HHS MANDATE TODAY!

Not everything with the word "mandate" is about religious liberty.
[/quote]

The HHS mandate is part and parcel of ObamaCare.... today was very much about the HHS Mandate, which would have been rejected along with the whole package.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Seven77

[Amppax]

[quote name='Seven77' timestamp='1340920075' post='2450122']
The HHS mandate is part and parcel of ObamaCare.... today was very much about the HHS Mandate!
[/quote]

Ok. But this ruling wasn't on the lawsuit filed by the 43 different Catholic institutions challenging the constitutionality of the HHS mandate.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Seven77' timestamp='1340920075' post='2450122']
The HHS mandate is part and parcel of ObamaCare.... today was very much about the HHS Mandate!
[/quote]

Yes, kind of, but only by extension. It wasn't mentioned in any part of the opinions or written decision. Like I said before, while this still lets that mandate stand, it allows the Court to make a ruling on religious freedom instead of commerce. If it had been struck down, sure, we wouldn't have had the mandate anymore, but there's nothing stopping the government from forcing religious institutions to do what it wants through other means. I think it's more of a temporary setback that will ultimately help the defense of religious freedom in our country.

[Seven77]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1340920454' post='2450124']


Yes, kind of, but only by extension. It wasn't mentioned in any part of the opinions or written decision. Like I said before, while this still lets that mandate stand, it allows the Court to make a ruling on religious freedom instead of commerce. If it had been struck down, sure, we wouldn't have had the mandate anymore, but there's nothing stopping the government from forcing religious institutions to do what it wants through other means. I think it's more of a temporary setback that will ultimately help the defense of religious freedom in our country.
[/quote]

of course, the fight continues... the religious freedom/mandate question remains and so does the lawsuit Amppax mentioned.

[Papist]

Does this not set a bad precedent re Government meddling in commerce. Obamacare requires all to have insurance, right? And I am sure it has to be Government approved insurance. Now we have the Supreme Court okaying this, what is next? Perhaps all homeowners must have Government approved energy efficient windows in their home. If not, you are fined.

[homeschoolmom]

I'm curious about those who would opt out of the Western medical system.... I'm sure the Amish are exempt, for example... But what about Christian Scientists? Or what about anyone who is just more "wholistic" in their world view who would never go to a doctor? Why in the world should they have to buy into a healthcare system they don't ever intend to use?

[MissyP89]

Someone on my Facebook just made an analogy:

She suggests that asking everyone to pay into Obamacare via the tax is like trash collection. People may want to opt out of having someone get rid of their trash for them, but doing so can be unsanitary and forces everyone else to pay more. So by asking everyone to pay a little, even those who choose not to participate, everyone is cared for and society is better as a whole.

I understand this is a pro-"big government" statement, but she seems reasonable to me. Thoughts, guys?

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1340924429' post='2450161']
Does this not set a bad precedent re Government meddling in commerce. Obamacare requires all to have insurance, right? And I am sure it has to be Government approved insurance. Now we have the Supreme Court okaying this, what is next? Perhaps all homeowners must have Government approved energy efficient windows in their home. If not, you are fined.
[/quote]

It seems to me that the Act barely made it out alive, with a bunch of qualifications to its implementation. I'm not trying to defend the Act, but the fact that the court probably won't okay much more than the kind of government influence that the Act implies. I thought it was interesting how much Roberts talked about how this only worked because it wasn't a true penalty, because if it even started acting like a true penalty it would be completely unconstitutional. He specifically mentioned a few ways that the IRS couldn't go about enforcing the collection of the tax. So really, the court tried to take as much teeth out of the Act as they could.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1340926996' post='2450185']
Someone on my Facebook just made an analogy:

She suggests that asking everyone to pay into Obamacare via the tax is like trash collection. People may want to opt out of having someone get rid of their trash for them, but doing so can be unsanitary and forces everyone else to pay more. So by asking everyone to pay a little, even those who choose not to participate, everyone is cared for and society is better as a whole.

I understand this is a pro-"big government" statement, but she seems reasonable to me. Thoughts, guys?
[/quote]

I kind of like this analogy.

I like the idea of having some kind of universal healthcare, because I think it's important that everyone have access to at least basic, affordable medical care. If we pay taxes for education, for public works, for fire departments and police departments...I'm not sure why [i]basic [/i]healthcare is that different.