The legal experts I've heard so far seem to agree that Obamacare will be overturned. It's simply not in the power of the government to mandate people's economic choices as the health care plan requires. i.e. saying that everyone has to buy into a health care plan.
Rock, I don't know the number of people who are expected to have to buy a health care plan either, but from what I remember they said that most of the poor who are in that category will get an exemption, and the major group will be young healthy people who do not have insurance through their parents or job, which is supposedly a relatively small amount of people.
I agree that it will be overturned and for the exact reason you give above.
In searching for info on who would have to pay that does not today I found this.
In 2007 the Census Bureau reported that more than 14 million people without health insurance earned annual incomes of at least $50,000, with 7.2 million of them making over $75,000.
If this is accurate then we're talking about 30% of that supposed 46 million.
The legal experts I've heard so far seem to agree that Obamacare will be overturned. It's simply not in the power of the government to mandate people's economic choices as the health care plan requires. i.e. saying that everyone has to buy into a health care plan.
Rock, I don't know the number of people who are expected to have to buy a health care plan either, but from what I remember they said that most of the poor who are in that category will get an exemption, and the major group will be young healthy people who do not have insurance through their parents or job, which is supposedly a relatively small amount of people.
I agree that it will be overturned and for the exact reason you give above.
In searching for info on who would have to pay that does not today I found this.
In 2007 the Census Bureau reported that more than 14 million people without health insurance earned annual incomes of at least $50,000, with 7.2 million of them making over $75,000.
If this is accurate then we're talking about 30% of that supposed 46 million.
The reason it will be overturned is because of a highly politicized court.
When the first suggestions of Obamacare coming to the Supreme Court came out, legal scholars were predicting it would be upheld 8-1. As the case moved forward, they realized the Republicans on the court no longer give a fuck about precedent, and are going to play politics on this case.
The legal experts I've heard so far seem to agree that Obamacare will be overturned. It's simply not in the power of the government to mandate people's economic choices as the health care plan requires. i.e. saying that everyone has to buy into a health care plan.
Rock, I don't know the number of people who are expected to have to buy a health care plan either, but from what I remember they said that most of the poor who are in that category will get an exemption, and the major group will be young healthy people who do not have insurance through their parents or job, which is supposedly a relatively small amount of people.
I agree that it will be overturned and for the exact reason you give above.
In searching for info on who would have to pay that does not today I found this.
In 2007 the Census Bureau reported that more than 14 million people without health insurance earned annual incomes of at least $50,000, with 7.2 million of them making over $75,000.
If this is accurate then we're talking about 30% of that supposed 46 million.
The reason it will be overturned is because of a highly politicized court.
When the first suggestions of Obamacare coming to the Supreme Court came out, legal scholars were predicting it would be upheld 8-1. As the case moved forward, they realized the Republicans on the court no longer give a fuck about precedent, and are going to play politics on this case.
That's why it is going to be overturned.
I listened to a good amount of the case and even the left leaning judges seemed to have a problem with the government forcing it's citizens to purchase something they may not want. I've heard the argument that they force us to buy car insurance but the out there is you can always choose to not drive a car. What existing precedent would you point to in this case?
I don't know the precedents or previous cases... I'm not a lawyer. But everything I read leading up to the case said that, based on precedent, it should be upheld. And, it won't be. To be fair, those same scholars say the Solicitor General's arguments sucked, so that won't help. But, if you think politics had nothing to do with what will be decided, that is very naive.
Below are the links by people more versed than I on why, based on precedent, the law should be upheld. It's actually a pretty easy google...
I don't know the precedents or previous cases... I'm not a lawyer. But everything I read leading up to the case said that, based on precedent, it should be upheld. And, it won't be. To be fair, those same scholars say the Solicitor General's arguments sucked, so that won't help. But, if you think politics had nothing to do with what will be decided, that is very naive.
Below are the links by people more versed than I on why, based on precedent, the law should be upheld. It's actually a pretty easy google...
What I heard, and what at least one of your links show, is that even Justice Sotomayor had a problem with Verilli's argument(Which was incredibly poor as you've stated above). That was the exact moment when I knew it would be overturned, even if Sotomayor votes to uphold.
In my view the argument came down to the mandate and I still have not been able to find any precedent that would support it?
I believe the government is arguing that the Commerce Clause of the constitution gives them authority across the country to regulate elements of society. This clause has been used for everything from upholding the New Deal to civil rights legislation. The law allows the government to regulate transactions across state the borders. There's nothing in there saying that the government can regulate people's choices however, which is what Obamacare is trying to mandate. That's why the law is going to be overturned.
I believe the government is arguing that the Commerce Clause of the constitution gives them authority across the country to regulate elements of society. This clause has been used for everything from upholding the New Deal to civil rights legislation. The law allows the government to regulate transactions across state the borders. There's nothing in there saying that the government can regulate people's choices however, which is what Obamacare is trying to mandate. That's why the law is going to be overturned.
That's how I see it.....if they had outlawed Insurance Companies and proposed a Social Security-like program where the Government supplied and controlled all the health care it would not have this problem.
And like I pointed out in my post about my friend earlier, the government DOES supply and control a segment of that market now and it does provide a level of "free" health care to every one of it's citizens and undocumented aliens.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Rockadelic said:
HarveyCanal said:
Please stop buying into the false evil Republican versus kindly Democrat paradigm. They are merely 2-heads of the same snake.
Would this be a kindly snake?
Plaese to be serious.
And you know, I actually support the concept of socialized health care...but not overseen by a criminal government. Stop the wars, straighten out the money/economy/budget, stop stealing our civil rights away, etc...then we can talk about socialized health care.
Not one of these articles by our intellectual superiors cites a single precedent for upholding the ACA.
gareth said:
I don't know the precedents or previous cases... I'm not a lawyer. But everything I read leading up to the case said that, based on precedent, it should be upheld. And, it won't be. To be fair, those same scholars say the Solicitor General's arguments sucked, so that won't help. But, if you think politics had nothing to do with what will be decided, that is very naive.
Below are the links by people more versed than I on why, based on precedent, the law should be upheld. It's actually a pretty easy google...
Not one of these articles by our intellectual superiors cites a single precedent for upholding the ACA.
Agreed.....they cite things like Social Security, vacines and auto insurance but those are apple/orange comparisons.
No one took the time to answer my earlier question about my friend who has received literally hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of health care without having insurance or money.
Is the feeling that he would have received even better care under Obamacare?
Some of the comments I see here and elsewhere makes it seem that we don't receive this kind of free health care in the U.S. when we obviously do.
Not one of these articles by our intellectual superiors cites a single precedent for upholding the ACA.
Agreed.....they cite things like Social Security, vacines and auto insurance but those are apple/orange comparisons.
No one took the time to answer my earlier question about my friend who has received literally hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of health care without having insurance or money.
Is the feeling that he would have received even better care under Obamacare?
Some of the comments I see here and elsewhere makes it seem that we don't receive this kind of free health care in the U.S. when we obviously do.
There's no free lunch. Someone is paying for your friend's healthcare. Likely, in an indirect manner through higher premiums, or state or federal tax revenue that's used to cover the cost. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that we receive "free" healthcare.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
The way I see it, the asshole-level mark-up's that people pay for rudimentary procedures and simple things like aspirin from a hospital cover instances when other people receive care and then neglect to pay their bills.
Not one of these articles by our intellectual superiors cites a single precedent for upholding the ACA.
Agreed.....they cite things like Social Security, vacines and auto insurance but those are apple/orange comparisons.
No one took the time to answer my earlier question about my friend who has received literally hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of health care without having insurance or money.
Is the feeling that he would have received even better care under Obamacare?
Some of the comments I see here and elsewhere makes it seem that we don't receive this kind of free health care in the U.S. when we obviously do.
There's no free lunch. Someone is paying for your friend's healthcare. Likely, in an indirect manner through higher premiums, or state or federal tax revenue that's used to cover the cost. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that we receive "free" healthcare.
Exactly.
And maybe even more importantly, if your friend would have been forced to pay for health insurance out of his non-reported income, he might have been able to get check-ups and possibly treatment before having a stroke.
The whole argument of letting everyone decide for themselves if they want coverage or not only to rely on being treated regardless when the shit hits the fan is bogus.
Then there's the whole angle of conservatives and their obsession with unborn life not giving a shit if the poor can afford to buy potentially life saving asthma medicine for their kids.
There's no free lunch. Someone is paying for your friend's healthcare. Likely, in an indirect manner through higher premiums, or state or federal tax revenue that's used to cover the cost. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that we receive "free" healthcare.
Exactly....everyone in the U.S., even the poor, indigent and non-citizen, currently get health care and those who pay taxes and insurance premiums pay for it all.
There's no free lunch. Someone is paying for your friend's healthcare. Likely, in an indirect manner through higher premiums, or state or federal tax revenue that's used to cover the cost. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that we receive "free" healthcare.
Exactly....everyone in the U.S., even the poor, indigent and non-citizen, currently get health care and those who pay taxes and insurance premiums pay for it all.
Having health care coverage and receiving treatment in case of an emergency are not the same thing. The difference can be life or death.
There's no free lunch. Someone is paying for your friend's healthcare. Likely, in an indirect manner through higher premiums, or state or federal tax revenue that's used to cover the cost. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that we receive "free" healthcare.
Exactly....everyone in the U.S., even the poor, indigent and non-citizen, currently get health care and those who pay taxes and insurance premiums pay for it all.
Having health care coverage and receiving treatment in case of an emergency are not the same thing. The difference can be life or death.
Agreed......and of the 46 million w/o full coverage a Google search found..."In 2007 the Census Bureau reported that more than 14 million people without health insurance earned annual incomes of at least $50,000, with 7.2 million of them making over $75,000"
That's 30% and quite frankly if we can't force them to buy health insurance I'd have no problem telling these folks that they get NO health care at all.
That's 30% and quite frankly if we can't force them to buy health insurance I'd have no problem telling these folks that they get NO health care at all.
That's easy said but in the real world and from how I think I know you, if push comes to shove, you'd pay the bill for them and in exchange give them a bootstraps lecture...
That's 30% and quite frankly if we can't force them to buy health insurance I'd have no problem telling these folks that they get NO health care at all.
Really? You would have no problem with that? This isn't the Wild West that we live in. "Let them die" is a bit extreme.
A better, more humane way of dealing with the issue, IMO, is what the ACA does, which is to provide the if you choose not to purchase health insurance (which is the only affordable way that health care is delivered in this country), you must pay a SMALL fee to help defer the costs of health care for people of your ilk. Not you, Rock, of course.
There's no free lunch. Someone is paying for your friend's healthcare. Likely, in an indirect manner through higher premiums, or state or federal tax revenue that's used to cover the cost. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that we receive "free" healthcare.
Exactly....everyone in the U.S., even the poor, indigent and non-citizen, currently get health care and those who pay taxes and insurance premiums pay for it all.
Having health care coverage and receiving treatment in case of an emergency are not the same thing. The difference can be life or death.
That's 30% and quite frankly if we can't force them to buy health insurance I'd have no problem telling these folks that they get NO health care at all.
That's easy said but in the real world and from how I think I know you, if push comes to shove, you'd pay the bill for them and in exchange give them a bootstraps lecture...
... and I mean this in the nicest way possible!
You're giving me too much credit.
If push comes to shove with someone who makes $50K - $75K a year and doesn't pay for health care insurance, but needs health care...... I'd pay the bill for them, take all his/her material wealth up to the amount owed, and THEN give them the bootstraps lecture.
There's a big difference between helping the needy vs. helping those who have the means/ability but don't help themselves.
That's 30% and quite frankly if we can't force them to buy health insurance I'd have no problem telling these folks that they get NO health care at all.
That's easy said but in the real world and from how I think I know you, if push comes to shove, you'd pay the bill for them and in exchange give them a bootstraps lecture...
... and I mean this in the nicest way possible!
You're giving me too much credit.
If push comes to shove with someone who makes $50K - $75K a year and doesn't pay for health care insurance, but needs health care...... I'd pay the bill for them, take all his/her material wealth up to the amount owed, and THEN give them the bootstraps lecture.
There's a big difference between helping the needy vs. helping those who have the means/ability but don't help themselves.
So did you go to your friend's house to confiscate a stroke-treatment worth of records?
That's 30% and quite frankly if we can't force them to buy health insurance I'd have no problem telling these folks that they get NO health care at all.
That's easy said but in the real world and from how I think I know you, if push comes to shove, you'd pay the bill for them and in exchange give them a bootstraps lecture...
... and I mean this in the nicest way possible!
You're giving me too much credit.
If push comes to shove with someone who makes $50K - $75K a year and doesn't pay for health care insurance, but needs health care...... I'd pay the bill for them, take all his/her material wealth up to the amount owed, and THEN give them the bootstraps lecture.
There's a big difference between helping the needy vs. helping those who have the means/ability but don't help themselves.
So did you go to your friend's house to confiscate a stroke-treatment worth of records?
I'm pretty certain that even though he didn't report any of his income, that it was low enough that he would have qualified for the insurance exemption. If he had owned a house, property, bank accounts I'm pretty sure they would be gone by now.
I have to admit, I was baiting to get to ask this question.
Seriously though, what about someone who makes 50 grand and above and decides to not get health insurance. Don't they just pay their own bills? Or is it actually possible that they receive treatment and just don't pay?
Personally, I honestly don't think there's any solution that's completely just and most of all sustainable. The heath care system in Germany is all fucked up, too. When you're young, healthy and self employed you can chose private health insurance coverage which is fairly cheap, I think I paid about 170 Euro a month back 12-8 years ago. The problem is that as you grow older, the rates go up to 600-800 and more a month, especially if you have any chronic problems. Most people then fall back into the social network and get a job with public healthcare. The main problem is that we have more and more old people who don;t pay into the system anymore and with life expectancy on the rise, this is a problem that just has not real solution.
Comments
I doubt it.
Like many people, his income was off the radar, and even if it wasn't I assume he is probably within an income range that would not have to pay?
I agree that it will be overturned and for the exact reason you give above.
In searching for info on who would have to pay that does not today I found this.
In 2007 the Census Bureau reported that more than 14 million people without health insurance earned annual incomes of at least $50,000, with 7.2 million of them making over $75,000.
If this is accurate then we're talking about 30% of that supposed 46 million.
The reason it will be overturned is because of a highly politicized court.
When the first suggestions of Obamacare coming to the Supreme Court came out, legal scholars were predicting it would be upheld 8-1. As the case moved forward, they realized the Republicans on the court no longer give a fuck about precedent, and are going to play politics on this case.
That's why it is going to be overturned.
I listened to a good amount of the case and even the left leaning judges seemed to have a problem with the government forcing it's citizens to purchase something they may not want. I've heard the argument that they force us to buy car insurance but the out there is you can always choose to not drive a car. What existing precedent would you point to in this case?
Below are the links by people more versed than I on why, based on precedent, the law should be upheld. It's actually a pretty easy google...
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=32245
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/us/randy-barnetts-pet-cause-end-of-health-law-hits-supreme-court.html?_r=2
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/03/supreme_court_and_obamacare_will_the_court_s_conservatives_strike_down_the_affordable_care_act_.html
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/03/29/wrapping-up-the-supreme-court-arguments-on-obamacare/
What I heard, and what at least one of your links show, is that even Justice Sotomayor had a problem with Verilli's argument(Which was incredibly poor as you've stated above). That was the exact moment when I knew it would be overturned, even if Sotomayor votes to uphold.
In my view the argument came down to the mandate and I still have not been able to find any precedent that would support it?
But then again, I'm not a lawyer either.
Would this be a kindly snake?
That's how I see it.....if they had outlawed Insurance Companies and proposed a Social Security-like program where the Government supplied and controlled all the health care it would not have this problem.
And like I pointed out in my post about my friend earlier, the government DOES supply and control a segment of that market now and it does provide a level of "free" health care to every one of it's citizens and undocumented aliens.
Plaese to be serious.
And you know, I actually support the concept of socialized health care...but not overseen by a criminal government. Stop the wars, straighten out the money/economy/budget, stop stealing our civil rights away, etc...then we can talk about socialized health care.
Until then, stop empowering these assjacks.
It was obvious sarcasm......and I totally agree with this....
"Stop the wars, straighten out the money/economy/budget, stop stealing, etc...then we can talk about socialized health care".
Agreed.....they cite things like Social Security, vacines and auto insurance but those are apple/orange comparisons.
No one took the time to answer my earlier question about my friend who has received literally hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of health care without having insurance or money.
Is the feeling that he would have received even better care under Obamacare?
Some of the comments I see here and elsewhere makes it seem that we don't receive this kind of free health care in the U.S. when we obviously do.
There doesn't need to be a precedent. Besides, the Roberts court has shown that precedents don't mean shit to them, anyway.
There's no free lunch. Someone is paying for your friend's healthcare. Likely, in an indirect manner through higher premiums, or state or federal tax revenue that's used to cover the cost. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that we receive "free" healthcare.
Exactly.
And maybe even more importantly, if your friend would have been forced to pay for health insurance out of his non-reported income, he might have been able to get check-ups and possibly treatment before having a stroke.
The whole argument of letting everyone decide for themselves if they want coverage or not only to rely on being treated regardless when the shit hits the fan is bogus.
Then there's the whole angle of conservatives and their obsession with unborn life not giving a shit if the poor can afford to buy potentially life saving asthma medicine for their kids.
Exactly....everyone in the U.S., even the poor, indigent and non-citizen, currently get health care and those who pay taxes and insurance premiums pay for it all.
Having health care coverage and receiving treatment in case of an emergency are not the same thing. The difference can be life or death.
Agreed......and of the 46 million w/o full coverage a Google search found..."In 2007 the Census Bureau reported that more than 14 million people without health insurance earned annual incomes of at least $50,000, with 7.2 million of them making over $75,000"
That's 30% and quite frankly if we can't force them to buy health insurance I'd have no problem telling these folks that they get NO health care at all.
That's easy said but in the real world and from how I think I know you, if push comes to shove, you'd pay the bill for them and in exchange give them a bootstraps lecture...
... and I mean this in the nicest way possible!
Really? You would have no problem with that? This isn't the Wild West that we live in. "Let them die" is a bit extreme.
A better, more humane way of dealing with the issue, IMO, is what the ACA does, which is to provide the if you choose not to purchase health insurance (which is the only affordable way that health care is delivered in this country), you must pay a SMALL fee to help defer the costs of health care for people of your ilk. Not you, Rock, of course.
No free lunch.
Agreed.
You're giving me too much credit.
If push comes to shove with someone who makes $50K - $75K a year and doesn't pay for health care insurance, but needs health care...... I'd pay the bill for them, take all his/her material wealth up to the amount owed, and THEN give them the bootstraps lecture.
There's a big difference between helping the needy vs. helping those who have the means/ability but don't help themselves.
So did you go to your friend's house to confiscate a stroke-treatment worth of records?
I'm pretty certain that even though he didn't report any of his income, that it was low enough that he would have qualified for the insurance exemption. If he had owned a house, property, bank accounts I'm pretty sure they would be gone by now.
Seriously though, what about someone who makes 50 grand and above and decides to not get health insurance. Don't they just pay their own bills? Or is it actually possible that they receive treatment and just don't pay?
Personally, I honestly don't think there's any solution that's completely just and most of all sustainable. The heath care system in Germany is all fucked up, too. When you're young, healthy and self employed you can chose private health insurance coverage which is fairly cheap, I think I paid about 170 Euro a month back 12-8 years ago. The problem is that as you grow older, the rates go up to 600-800 and more a month, especially if you have any chronic problems. Most people then fall back into the social network and get a job with public healthcare. The main problem is that we have more and more old people who don;t pay into the system anymore and with life expectancy on the rise, this is a problem that just has not real solution.