Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 53

Thread: obama health care law before scotus

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Lompoc, Ca
    Posts
    8,430
    Thanks
    1,286
    Thanked 1,472 Times in 1,090 Posts
    Groans
    475
    Groaned 278 Times in 249 Posts

    Default obama health care law before scotus

    this will be of interest to you legal types and the result to all of us

    i have to admit that i am in favor of it standing up to scotus review

    http://news.yahoo.com/u-healthcare-l...165037809.html
    I pledge allegiance to the constitution of the United States of America as amended by the legislative and executive branches and interpreted by the Supreme Court

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,846
    Thanks
    13,245
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    if it should fail it would be a disaster for Obama's re-election.....he would go into November facing the loss of his biggest "fulfilled" campaign promise.....
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Lompoc, Ca
    Posts
    8,430
    Thanks
    1,286
    Thanked 1,472 Times in 1,090 Posts
    Groans
    475
    Groaned 278 Times in 249 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    if it should fail it would be a disaster for Obama's re-election.....he would go into November facing the loss of his biggest "fulfilled" campaign promise.....
    and if it withstands scotus he will have a diamond
    I pledge allegiance to the constitution of the United States of America as amended by the legislative and executive branches and interpreted by the Supreme Court

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Don Quixote For This Post:

    midcan5 (03-27-2012)

  5. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,489
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    if the law is upheld, the founders vision of america is completely dead. there is absolutely no frickin way that the 'restricted' central government they envisioned would have been able to mandate the purchase of anything. It was bad enough when they were allowed to prohibit the possession of anything without a constitutional amendment, but then again, democrats and republicans haven't cared about the constitution for over a century.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  6. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,846
    Thanks
    13,245
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Quixote View Post
    and if it withstands scotus he will have a diamond
    no, then he's stuck with the status quo.....which is still a lump of coal in everyone's stocking......
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  7. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Quixote View Post
    this will be of interest to you legal types and the result to all of us

    i have to admit that i am in favor of it standing up to scotus review

    http://news.yahoo.com/u-healthcare-l...165037809.html
    It will be interesting to see. I doubt that they can reject the whole law (or set of laws) but might reject significant parts of it. The most important of which would be the universal mandate.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  8. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou View Post
    if the law is upheld, the founders vision of america is completely dead. there is absolutely no frickin way that the 'restricted' central government they envisioned would have been able to mandate the purchase of anything. It was bad enough when they were allowed to prohibit the possession of anything without a constitutional amendment, but then again, democrats and republicans haven't cared about the constitution for over a century.
    Yea well you've never had to manage the health care needs of 30 million uninsured or the cost of providing for the needs of 40 million seniors, have you? Or should we just let the old and poor fuckers die? Do you have any better and workable options that would pass your high and mighty purity test?
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mott the Hoople For This Post:

    midcan5 (03-27-2012), Phantasmal (03-16-2012)

  10. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    no, then he's stuck with the status quo.....which is still a lump of coal in everyone's stocking......
    ...or a diamond. I hope it never happens to you PiMP but if a family member of yours is seriosly injured or develops a life threatening illness, you'll probably be singing a different tune when you can get competent medical care and not go bankrupt or watch them suffer or die cause you cannot afford adequate care or are denied access to care by your Insurance company.

    I really don't understand why you reactionaries insist on stradling this nation with a backward, third world health management system? With our wealth and technology and educational system why do you oppose moderninzing our health care managements system? It defies logic and reason. I just don't get why you want to stay stuck in the 1950's?
    Last edited by Mott the Hoople; 03-15-2012 at 03:53 PM.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mott the Hoople For This Post:

    christiefan915 (03-20-2012), Phantasmal (03-16-2012)

  12. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    55,018
    Thanks
    15,249
    Thanked 19,001 Times in 13,040 Posts
    Groans
    307
    Groaned 1,147 Times in 1,092 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Don Quixote View Post
    and if it withstands scotus he will have a diamond
    Probably not. With substantial aspects of PPACA I doubt anything SCOTUS could decide before the election would help Obama. I think that will affect Obama's legacy more than anything. SCOTUS can't undo all of PPACA. They can hit it hard one the universal mandate and rule that unconstitutional, which would certainly have an impact on cost management. Most of the other aspects of the law would require Congress to change the law. That would be pretty hard to do with out one party controlling the White House, The House and a 60 seat majority in the Senate, which is what Democrats had when they passed the law. That's unlikely to happen in the near future.
    You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic!

  13. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,386
    Thanks
    877
    Thanked 1,882 Times in 1,475 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 237 Times in 228 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou View Post
    if the law is upheld, the founders vision of america is completely dead. there is absolutely no frickin way that the 'restricted' central government they envisioned would have been able to mandate the purchase of anything. It was bad enough when they were allowed to prohibit the possession of anything without a constitutional amendment, but then again, democrats and republicans haven't cared about the constitution for over a century.
    "if the law is upheld, the founders vision of america is completely dead."

    Quite the contrary. The Founders made it very clear what they hoped to achieve.

    (Excerpt) The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (End) (Dic.com)

    If the Founders were aware that a pill, costing 50 cents at today's prices, would increase the lifespan of certain citizens by decades do you think the Founders would have said, "To hell with that. Let them die"?

    Furthermore, there is a difference between demanding one make a purchase they can not afford and demanding they make a purchase with the assistance of the government, if necessary. Whether "general welfare" applies to individuals or the country as a whole it is in the interest of both that citizens do not die unnecessarily.

    The preamble, what the Founders hoped the Constitution would achieve, clearly states the government is to "promote" (to help or encourage to exist or flourish) the general welfare. Relieving pain and suffering. Preventing untimely deaths.

    In order for one to say the government is overstepping its mandate they must interpret "promote" as "do nothing" or consider that sickness and death of citizens have no bearing on the general welfare of the citizens and/or the country.

    Do you see any other possible reason?
    "May your reality be as pleasant as mine."

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to apple0154 For This Post:

    Don Quixote (03-16-2012)

  15. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,489
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Derp Derp View Post
    Yea well you've never had to manage the health care needs of 30 million uninsured or the cost of providing for the needs of 40 million seniors, have you? Or should we just let the old and poor fuckers die? Do you have any better and workable options that would pass your high and mighty purity test?
    1) that's irrelevant. the constitution was not written to make the government our nannies or parents.
    2) that's irrelevant. the federal government has no constitutional power to manage anyones healthcare but their own.
    3) that's irrelevant. I have parents and when they need it, i'll take care of their needs. that's how it should be for everyone else to, but selfish fuckers like you don't want to care for your own elderly family members, you want the government to do it.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  16. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,489
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apple0154 View Post
    "if the law is upheld, the founders vision of america is completely dead."

    Quite the contrary. The Founders made it very clear what they hoped to achieve.

    (Excerpt) The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (End) (Dic.com)

    If the Founders were aware that a pill, costing 50 cents at today's prices, would increase the lifespan of certain citizens by decades do you think the Founders would have said, "To hell with that. Let them die"?

    Furthermore, there is a difference between demanding one make a purchase they can not afford and demanding they make a purchase with the assistance of the government, if necessary. Whether "general welfare" applies to individuals or the country as a whole it is in the interest of both that citizens do not die unnecessarily.

    The preamble, what the Founders hoped the Constitution would achieve, clearly states the government is to "promote" (to help or encourage to exist or flourish) the general welfare. Relieving pain and suffering. Preventing untimely deaths.

    In order for one to say the government is overstepping its mandate they must interpret "promote" as "do nothing" or consider that sickness and death of citizens have no bearing on the general welfare of the citizens and/or the country.

    Do you see any other possible reason?
    the preamble assigns no powers, the articles do. therefore, the preamble gives a general definition, not an ultimate definition.
    pretty damned tired of your bullshit preamble thinking that the government can do anything with phenomenal cosmic powers when the founders wrote a constitution that LIMITS the federal power.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  17. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Lompoc, Ca
    Posts
    8,430
    Thanks
    1,286
    Thanked 1,472 Times in 1,090 Posts
    Groans
    475
    Groaned 278 Times in 249 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterThanYou View Post
    1) that's irrelevant. the constitution was not written to make the government our nannies or parents.
    2) that's irrelevant. the federal government has no constitutional power to manage anyones healthcare but their own.
    3) that's irrelevant. I have parents and when they need it, i'll take care of their needs. that's how it should be for everyone else to, but selfish fuckers like you don't want to care for your own elderly family members, you want the government to do it.
    one way or another both need to be covered or we are a nation of the selfish
    I pledge allegiance to the constitution of the United States of America as amended by the legislative and executive branches and interpreted by the Supreme Court

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Don Quixote For This Post:

    Mott the Hoople (03-16-2012)

  19. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    134,846
    Thanks
    13,245
    Thanked 40,785 Times in 32,151 Posts
    Groans
    3,661
    Groaned 2,865 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Derp Derp View Post
    I hope it never happens to you PiMP but if a family member of yours is seriosly injured or develops a life threatening illness, you'll probably be singing a different tune when you can get competent medical care and not go bankrupt or watch them suffer or die cause you cannot afford adequate care or are denied access to care by your Insurance company.

    I really don't understand why you reactionaries insist on stradling this nation with a backward, third world health management system? With our wealth and technology and educational system why do you oppose moderninzing our health care managements system? It defies logic and reason. I just don't get why you want to stay stuck in the 1950's?
    I hope it doesn't happen to anyone.....but it puzzles me why some on the left think that the way to make sure those who didn't have insurance were protected was to fuck up the insurance that some people DID have....the goal was to add protection, not destroy it......

    of course you have to remember that this is insurance brought to you by people who thought, in college, that the way to save the country was to burn it down......
    Isaiah 6:5
    “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”

  20. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    85,117
    Thanks
    2,505
    Thanked 16,531 Times in 10,535 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 578 Times in 535 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Derp Derp View Post
    It will be interesting to see. I doubt that they can reject the whole law (or set of laws) but might reject significant parts of it. The most important of which would be the universal mandate.
    They can, actually. The law was written without the provisions usually used by the courts that they use to separate out bits to allow some to stand while other parts die.
    Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but rather we have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
    - -- Aristotle

    Believe nothing on the faith of traditions, even though they have been held in honor for many generations and in diverse places. Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it. Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past. Do not believe what you yourself have imagined, persuading yourself that a God inspires you. Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests. After examination, believe what you yourself have tested and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto.
    - -- The Buddha

    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
    - -- Aristotle

Similar Threads

  1. Obama care requires-National Health Care Identification Card:
    By The Dude in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 12-30-2011, 08:27 PM
  2. scotus and kagan and health care
    By Schadenfreude in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-05-2011, 02:40 PM
  3. APP - obama health care
    By Don Quixote in forum Above Plain Politics Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-10-2009, 08:23 AM
  4. obama health care
    By Don Quixote in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-10-2009, 01:47 AM
  5. Dems alone can't deliver Obama health care win
    By Topspin in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 07-27-2009, 01:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •