Well looks like Obamacare may be thrown out in the courts

Post Reply New Topic

They've already collectively decided to brand Obama "the next Carter," so they will retain a seething hatred of him regardless of what he does or how little of his record they actually remember.

I don't care whose idea it was, it still is a stupid idea the Democrats decided to run with.



Or maybe cause they decided after thinking about it that it was a bad idea. Why is it liberals are so into promoting tyrannies anyways?

This is a matter that WILL not be decided in lower courts.

The arrogant Obama administration said they only have 3 rulings with 2 saying the law is constitutional. Without doing research, I know one of those two rulings is from a Clinton appointee. So, there is no doubt this will go to the US Supreme Court.

If the US Supreme Court upholds Obamacare as constitutional (certainly, the issue of being compelled to purchase insurance or face a fine), then America is dead. If you can be forced to buy health insurance because choosing not to buy insurance affects interstate commerce (an irony since insurance can not be sold across state lines...an issue for reform that was rejected), then why not have Congress mandate that every American making more than $150K/year buy a new GM car to help GM get back on its feet? It's a dangerous legal precedent I predict the highest court will soundly reject.

However, the Obama administration is vacillating on this. They claim that the Commerce Clause allows them to mandate people buy insurance or be fined for not doing so. When pushed on that passing muster, the flip-flop and say that under the government's taxing authority, they can compel people to buy insurance or be taxed for it by the IRS. This is certainly constitutional, but the Obama administration said repeatedly that it was not a tax but a "fine." They want to argue one thing to the public but another in court.

The U.S. Supreme court is a bit heavy on the conservative side.

Not to worry.

ruveyn

It was actually a concession to the insurance companies. The only way they could get a guarantee that people won't be excluded for pre-existing conditions was to make a rule that everyone had to maintain health insurance—otherwise people would abuse the system by only buying insurance when they were seriously ill, thus defeating the whole point of insurance. I'd love to hear what alternative you have that both avoids blatant abuse of the insurance system and prevents the massive health insurance discrimination on pre-existing conditions that makes it effectively impossible for many people to get health care at all.

Oh wait, I forgot. You don't have any solutions or proposals of your own, just like the rest of the Republican party. All you can do is sit in a corner and scream "Hell no!"


You have a better proposal? None of the Republicans thought about it and decided it was a bad idea. It's a simple matter of "Obama wants this, so we must oppose it." There is no sane reason for opposing the New START treaty. And everywhere else, Obama implements basically Republican proposals and the GOP starts screaming about "radical leftism" forcing centrist or center-right proposals farther to the right.

And while we're talking tyrannies, how about the PATRIOT Act? That's a hell of a lot more tyrannical than the healthcare bill.

It was a concession based on the fact that if they didn't have it, insurance companies could sue on the basis the law was crafted deliberately to run them out of business, which would also make it unconstitutional btw. You can't craft laws to deliberately ruin specific businesses, groups of people, etc. because it violates equal protection under the law.



If you had paid attention to the health care debacle, you'd know the Republicans actually had a proposal that made sense that was never allowed to be brought up on the House floor by Nancy Pelosi. Did you just not know that fact, or are you deliberately continuing the perpetuation of the lie that Democrats and the media created to try to smear the Republicans for not going along with an unconstitutional piece of garbage? I'm being perfectly serious and demand an answer cause it is either one or the other. I will keep bringing this up until I get an answer from you, but either way your credibility on this issue is going to take a lot of damage.



Here is a sane reason for opposing START, we already know the country of Russia isn't going to honor it, so why should we tie our hands behind our backs? Furthermore, the issue isn't just about Russia at the moment, whom at least have leaders that are relatively sane. We have countries with mental cases running them that have Nuclear weapons or are working to obtain nuclear weapons. If the START treaty is so good, how about we have the treaty in its entirety posted up for everyone to read? Additionally, I don't see why the treaty can't wait for the new congress to come in and have a look at it, it shouldn't be a rush job where we don't really have time to have a debate on the senate floor like it should be.

So there is a rational reason to opposing START, I'd appreciate it if you stop trying to paint Conservatives as being unhinged when it is painfully obvious that they are not, I really don't like calling you on it, but I will continue to do so if you keep doing it.



PATRIOT ACT was a response to an act of war, was it perfect no, but the Constitution does factor in wartime situations. Did the PATRIOT ACT need adjustments, yes. Was it a deliberate attempt to seize power, no.

If Obamacare is ruled constitutional, then the Government's power is limitless, we no longer have any rights. For starters since Government is running it, they can dictate everything we do cause they have to pay for health care costs. They can also tell us what to buy, etc. PATRIOT ACT was intended to be for intercepting communications from Al Qaeda, and has to be renewed every few years. I imagine it will eventually no longer be in existence. Obamacare however will have unelected officials running it without any oversight and no review from congress. It also penalizes people for choosing not to engage in commerce, which is unconstitutional.

If you have a list of what parts of the PATRIOT ACT you have a problem with, I'd be more than happy to hear them or give a counter argument, however Obamacare is far worse than the PATRIOT ACT.

The judge who ruled in this case has been exposed as a right wing partisan.

Under a so-called perfect market system, millions will be condemned much as if a market system were charged with setting up sewers, the slums would not have any.

Financially involved with parties who benefit a certain outcome for the case (which he delivered).

I've already pointed out that the source you two are citing has no credibility, I didn't even have to try to find information to discredit it. Took under two minutes, and considering that Barack Obama was directly tied to that source as well as a Domestic Terrorist doesn't help your case either.

If the judge hadn't ruled the way he did, he would be saying the Government's power is unlimited and we effectively have no rights, while that may be your idea of a utopia and you enjoy gas chambers and concentration camps, I for one value my rights.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt145478.html

If you had paid attention, you would have known that there was no proposed "government takeover" of healthcare. But you get your information from partisan hacks, whereas I follow partisan hacks on both sides in addition to getting a factual background from relatively-neutral sources.


You have no f*****g idea what you're talking about.
a) They have honored START for more than the past 20 years.
b) An important provision of the treaty is that we get to have inspectors at Russian facilities inspecting their equipment and enforcing compliance, thus ensuring the security of the Russian nuclear stockpile and that it doesn't fall into terrorist hands. Since the treaty expired, we are no longer able to inspect and secure the Russian nuclear stockpile, which is a MASSIVE threat to our national security.


Putin is a KGB man. He is dangerous. He can and will kill anyone in his way. No sane person would trust him.


Irrelevant to the START treaty, which is a deal between us and Russia. We have to deal with Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, etc separately from this.


Because it's expired, you moron! Right now, the Russian nuclear stockpile is not being inspected or observed by the American government. This is DANGEROUS! It puts the lives of millions of civilians at risk not to have this treaty ratified and in force.


Some are unhinged; the ones in Congress are really just obstructionist more than anything else. All they care about is scoring political points against Obama (and that is by their own admission).

Didn't I also discredit your attempt to smear Fox News too? Seriously, you are being so blatent about using Saul Allinsky tactics that it is pretty laughable.

Furthermore, I didn't even have to use Fox News to discredit your source in this article, all I had to do was follow the money trail and it led straight back the Arheim Foundation (spelling might be off) which leads directly to Barack Obama and Bill Ayers (the unrepentant domestic terrorist).

How many GOP politicians does Fox News employ, again? 8?

Of course you do; because without that poison, you'd never know who George Soros was rather less that he's not a conservative elite like the rest.