"Republicans and Democrats are girding for a politically explosive week as the Supreme Court prepares to rule as early as Monday on the federal health care overhaul."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06 … care-case/
Seems to me that the 10th amendment all by itself invalidates Obamacare. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
However, Congress and the Supreme Court have been ignoring the 10th amendment for decades. I'm putting the odds at 50:50 here.
Sorry, but I'd find the true news ANYplace but Fox.
I do agree that Obamacare has some serious flaws, though.
I also agree with people who say something must be done about our really, truly, incompetent, inefficient, expensive, ugly (well, you get the idea) healthcare situation. Our quality of care is below Cuba's for Pete's sake! And our infant mortality is so bad that 33 other countries are listed as having lower infant deaths than we are.
I'm glad we've finally decided to join the rest of the developed world in offering universal health care! Go Supreme Court!
I'm expecting the Supreme Court to side with individual rights. If not, then apparent the Constitution truly isn't what it was meant to be.
Obamacare isn't affordable health care and it has no hope in reforming "health care" in America.
Whenever government puts their hands into something then the cost of living increase for EVERYONE not just some.
One thing is for sure, no matter the ruling, one side will not be happy and the politics will ratchet up some more.
Hey AV, the politics is going to ratchet up anyways.
Gotta agree here. Damn politics gets in the way of any real progress. There are some good things in Obamacare, there are some bad things. Work together and produce something that helps America rather than thinking about how to use the 'politics' to gain power.
But neither side will do that. I cannot see the court overturning the bill so Obama will tout this as a victory - however if it is turned over the Republicans will use it to try and use it to win the election.
Come on - work for the people, not for the power....
Obamacare is dead. I don't think the politics will ratchet up. I think the progressives have been defeated for this generation.
But, American View, I respect your opinion on it. I know everyone will be talking about it for 10 days, then Romney and Obama will settle in on some bogus lines, and we'll hear that nonsense for a few months.
But, otherwise, the healthcare conversation is dead. Just go to the ER, that's going to be the Supreme Court and the House Republican message. And what? Can you argue with that?
I'm sure the payoffs to Clarence Thomas will have their effects.
No more than Elena Kagan or Sonia Sotomayor.
Were they paid money by the insurance industry too?
You can't seriously say that you are unaware of that.....
Oh wait, FoxNews.
Cite a source Ron
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference … index.html
So If Clarence did? What about Elena Kaggan, who helped write the healthcare bill, but wouldn't recuse herself? Must have been some very interesting discussions on this thing.
Cags - I read the FoxNews link and read an article in today's paper. If I read it correctly - Obama seems to think that within the lines of the Constitution - the government can force people to acquire health insurance. This they have to prove. Medicaid will hit the roof - and each state will have a huge project on their hands if ObamaCare is approved.
And I am not expecting the Supreme Court to hold it in place. I think the Courts are going to tell them they cannot do it in this case.
As I already said, I don't approve of the government getting involved in this part of society. It will only waste money, more resources and trillions unseen in the future.
I cannot vote in the US (even though I pay a boat load of taxes) - I benefit in many ways from Obamacare - I cannot understand how both sides cannot sit around a table and work out what parts should be kept and what parts should be removed.
The democrats will not shift and insist the whole bill must be accepted. The Republicans sit back and say it's not constitutional and will repeal the whole act despite the fact that millions of people are benefiting -and yet they have not said what they will do.
Come on Washington - forget about Party lines - do what is right for once and work together! Yeah right!
Both sides should be thrown out of power....
You say that "millions of people are benefiting" but at who's expense are they benefiting? Obama can talk all he wants about the zero debt load of this program but when a government hands out free medical coverage to 30+ million people, then someone has to pay for that ride. Ultimately that cost will fall squarely on the backs of the middle-class taxpayers. The wealthy of America will bear some of that burden but it will not be felt like it will be by the middle-class of people who have to work for a living, have to pay these mandated premiums and have to accept the level of care which comes with it...then add on the additional costs of those who get the free ride. This is simply another step deeper into the the social drowning of this country. This decision by the Supreme Court seals that fate and throws the door wide open for ignoring the Constitution on future matters. Forget about what it does to lower the potential quality of healthcare, attract the most talent workers in the discipline and deal with cost efficiencies. The government has not touched anything and saw the costs go down...they will head up...way way up. This is the tragedy of this decision and ultimately the irony of "providing affordable quality healthcare". WB
What a miserable attitude. You would rather see tens of thousands of your fellow Americans suffer for the sake of saving some lousy tax dollars.
Vast numbers of people die every year in the US of preventable causes because they don't have access to care. The number one cause of bankruptcy in your country is apparently due to illness and medical costs. You spend twice as much on healthcare as any other industrialised nation yet are ranked 37th in the world by the WHO.
BTW, there seems to be a consensus among the TV commentators that the Supreme Court can pick and choose what parts of the bill are valid and which are not. This could be a very messy week indeed...
They won't hand down the ruling until Thursday. Then they all leave for Europe and points beyond. They won't come back to work until October and the hoop la will have died down. That should tell us something,
There is an "investment" website out there that presumably never, ever gets it wrong. That site says the odds are 75% that the individual mandate will be ruled unconstitutional.
I wonder where the feathers in Washington are going to start flying now...
A bit overstated to say they're eating crow, but...
House Republicans have vowed to repeal the entire law, though it's unlikely the Democratic-controlled Senate would let that happen, and this decision may slow momentum for that move.
"Today's ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety," House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement.
Mitt Romney told reporters shortly before noon that he would repeal the law his first day in office if elected. "ObamaCare was bad policy yesterday, it's bad policy today," he said.
Want a little tar with them feathers, boys?
Republicans have been saying since the beginning, this is a tax.
How is he going to repeal it his first day in office? By Executive Order? Won't that make him a dictator to all those constitutional "experts" who just had a fit over Obama's recent Executive Order?
No, no executive order needed. He is going to opt the states out, just like Obama has done for his unions and business buddies. Opting out in in the healthcare law. So Romney will use the law against itself
Then the obese, diabetic, tobacco-smoking slovenly morons from the opted-out states can come to MY state, which has been planning to move forward with our without ACA.
Because addresseing the rapidly worsening health of our citizens, their lack of access to care (forget affordable, let's talk available) has to happen or the health care safety net, already full of holes, will break.
Which is apparently what the Republicans really want.
Viva private payers!
I've read the article about it and I now have one question.
When does taxation become too much that it violates the Declaration of Independence?
Probably anything over 100%. Though it will depend on the make-up of the Court at the time...
I see a Constitutional problem here:
Right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
"Remedy or set right (an undesirable or unfair situation): "the power to redress the grievances of our citizens"
Where do the people file petition? At the ballot box? That does not make sense.
Split decisions make it blatantly clear to me that there is no such thing as jurisprudence anymore. It's all 100% politics. So whatever the Court's politics are, that will be what the taxes are.
This ruling is actually stunning. Think about it. They constrained the commerce clause and said the mandate was permissible because it was a tax. Bringing the IRS into the mix. Also making Mr.Obama the highest taxing president of all time. Today the president is rejoicing, but in a few days when the ruling unravels there will be whaling and gnashing of teeth in DC. The court did what it was supposed to do in a circuitous fashion. They threw the politics back at the politicians and called a tax a tax.
But, that doesn't address my original question which I posed before the response you responded to, asked.
When does too much taxation violate the Declaration of Independence?
Americans are well known for their "I want, want, want, but don't want to pay for it" attitude. For the right wing out there, get over it and welcome to modern times. This isn't the late 18th Century.
Awesome post by tirelesstraveler, completely true. Roberts has made a genius move for conservatives.
Yes, they will continue to argue that wealthy individuals and mega-corporations should continue to enjoy paying a smaller portion of their income in federal taxes than do middle-class Americans, while simultaneously calling for an end to a relatively small tax that will only be applied to those who refuse to take personal responsibility for their health by purchasing health insurance.
I'd say that's a winning argument for the party of personal responsibility!
Didn't realize when I wrote that comment the Roberts turned trader and blew the constitution out of the water.
Obama campaign, new campaign song:
There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don’t take it all.
‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
(If you drive a car ), I’ll tax the street,
(If you try to sit ), I’ll tax your seat,
(If you get too cold ), I’ll tax the heat,
(If you take a walk ), I’ll tax your feet.
‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Now my advice for those who die,
Declare the pennies on your eyes,
‘Cause I’m the Taxman,
Yeah, I’m the Taxman.
And you’re working for no-one but me,
It is a corporate court. Forced buy a private corporate product.
social contract theory
socialized health care (you pay more, you have the capacity to pay more)
the price of belonging to a society and a certain government
health is basic just like education, the gov't has the right to improve the overall Q of life
Thank you PDH! I desperately needed something to make me laugh. Much appreciated.
The health care situation in the US is way par below, 17th among the more developed nations. Don't you think the government needs to do something about it? The fact is that we are under a government and we have a social unwritten contract with that gov't so that they can help improve the health situation of the people.
When a parent doesn't send their children to school all things normal, there is truancy. What is the difference between education and health? We speak of freedom but we breathe the same air and we live in a territory.
I'm not sure why you think that's so funny. We pay for our government to facilitate the killing of people in other countries; why can't we pay for our government to facilitate better health care for our own people?
Because, it's pathetic(so sad it's funny) to think that "health" is anyone else's responsibility other than self.
Yes, I understand that "health care" should be affordable. I have no problem with that idea. However, the government isn't going to make that happen. To think that it can when it cannot address other social issues such as poverty and homelessness, is completely absurd.
Health is absolutely a responsibility beyond the individual's.
Or do you advocate abolishing entities like the CDC?
Mighty Mom, your health is specifically your responsibility until it no longer can be done. Then it should fall on society to help pick up the tab.
Until then, NO! it is not someone else's responsibility.
Your question is moot because it's comparing apples to oranges. Why? Two distinct difference in responsibility.
How is it apples and oranges, Cags?
My health either my personal responsibility or it's not.
If it's mine, I do not require any government intervention, including a government agency to keep me healthy.
Taxpayer dollars fund CDC. How can you sanction that waste?
Yes, but if you don't plan for the future of your life, then you will most likely have no ability to take care of the responsibility for end of life issues, which could range in the thousands of dollars a month, a day or a year for years.
That is why I said, when you are no longer able to take care of the responsibility of taking care of yourself, then it should fall upon the rest of society to help your end of life issues to be minimized as much as possible.
Mighty Mom, your argument here is completely foolish. There's some things which are beyond your control as a part of society, such as domestic attacks on you individually and/or foreign attacks from others.
Domestic attacks and foreign attacks are not something you can control. Having affordable health care because of the actions of others is necessary, but Obamacare isn't affordable health care. As explained- whenever the government gets involved in personal/individual matters such as this, then ALL related costs increase because they(government) got involved.
Yes, I know.
"As explained- whenever the government gets involved in personal/individual matters such as this, then ALL related costs increase because they(government) got involved."
This is simply not true.
If you care to look at the rest of the world for once and remove the America only blinders you would see that American healthcare is much much more expensive than the public health care of other nations for a much lower quality.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog … orld-obama
For me the issue has always been about the 45 000 American lives that will be saved yearly by Obamacare (according to the Harvard study) it's sadly apparent how quickly some abandon their compassion when it might touch their pocketbook.
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/ … hs-a-year/
Yes, I know. You telling me to look at the rest of the world as an example? is stupidity in motion.
America has expensive healthcare. It's known. Why do you think everyone is upset? The quality of care is low which is also something else that has people upset. It's known.
Making America like every other Nation on the planet isn't a solution to the problem of quality care which should be affordable to the average citizen.
I understand what you're saying, but there's another way to do it without the unnecessary "taxation" and that's to cut spending on the military industrial complex, add some spending to education of the citizens. Get the dollar under control, fix the deficit, put a budget on the damn table, cut divisions NOT needed or warranted or overlap or duplicate.
Establish equality and equal rights, and enforce it. This solves the issues about affordable healthcare.
It's called logic, if it's working everywhere else maybe trying it is a good idea?
That's a pretty ambitious plan and it won't solve the problem.
Really? The quality of care from what I have heard and this is from a direct friend who lives in the U.K., and she goes to the doctor with fear in her veins because she isn't quite sure of the care she is going to receive. How is that a good thing to do to a person?
care to provide some facts other than my friend told me?
The link there will show you the difference quite easily and the Last World health organization analysis placed the US very low at #37.
I just trying to show you, people from outside of America are just like Americans right now, and that are scared to go to the doctors. Literally, scared.
I don't need to provide links for that sort of thing. When someone tells me they are scared to go to the doctors and then tells me why. My friends, I tend to believe them. Why? Because they are my friends. I trust my friends are not going to LIE to me.
Giving government the power to control healthcare of the citizen is only going to provide minimal at best type of services. A prime example- Social security payments paid to people are at or near poverty levels. Whenever government is involved it gets MORE expensive through plenty of other factors not known to the average person. Why? Because, the average person cannot see beyond themselves and have no National view. Why not? Because they cannot wrap their mind around it. They are not knowledgeable enough to do it.
You consistently state that others are just not knowledgeable or intelligent enough to grasp the concepts that you say you do, yet you do not take the time to legitimize your supposed knowledge with any kind of independent support. Pardon me if I'm just not willing to take your word that you are so much wiser than those with whom you disagree.
Hey PP, the dumbing down of society began about 20 years ago. Why? Because, equality and equal rights were producing growth. The growth America has now compared to what it was is what's laughable in this country.
America has seen more wars in the last 20 years than it saw in the first 180 years. Wars don't produce growth for Americans, it kills Americans. No support for veterans when they come back. If you think just because the government does the little it does, is enough? Then isn't that less humane?
Have you been paying attention to the TV ads lately? Look at the ridiculous nature of them...some are so childish or just down right stupid.
Are you smarter than a 5th grader?
I don't care if you take my word for it. I figured it was common sense.
Your post has little to do with the subject being discussed, but okay.
Did you miss something? Yeah, the basic understanding of providing for oneself and how government has been ineffective and inefficient in doing it's job as it is, much less take on supposed "affordable" health care.
Socializing health care on a National level with government involvement wouldn't be needed if the overall of society had an equal playing field on a economic standpoint and truly had equal rights.
Well i am sorry your friend is scared but statistically speaking she has a lot more to fear in the US.
But she doesn't live in the U.S. Which is the point. She knows government controls healthcare and the quality of that care isn't what it used to be.
That same affect/effect will happen in America. Right now as it stands, citizens are already fearful of the doctors. They don't want to be diagnosed with something, which would then lead them to prescription medicines.
The FDA is a joke. It says one thing is bad for you, but then comes out years later to say it's okay.
The drugs on the marketplace are more dangerous than the illegal drugs. That's what is a joke in this country.
There is SO MUCH distortion and misinformation that it's literally causing so much more disruption than necessary. This should show people how they are purposely being toyed with, yet not many people are seeing it.
I don't have a problem here either. Yes, you sometimes have to wait longer for elective surgery and have long waits in the emergency room if your problem is not life threatening but that is basically it. Doctors are regulated, if you don't get good care you can report them.
Mighty Mom is correct. The CDC exists to protect our health. Their mission statement:
"Collaborating to create the expertise, information, and tools that people and communities need to protect their health – through health promotion, prevention of disease, injury and disability, and preparedness for new health threats."
The rest of it is here: http://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/mission.htm
Of course, everyone should take personal responsibility for their own health. However, one cannot control everything, such as the drunk driver who puts a perfectly healthy person in the hospital resulting in thousands or even millions in medical bills for that one stupid act. It is not laughable to believe it is cost effective and prudent for our government to provide certain services to its citizens that are either morally necessary or for the greater good of the country as a whole.
No problem can be completely solved by government, but some things, such as the health of its citizens, can be helped by government involvement. One good example is the government initiative to warn its citizens of the hazards of smoking. No, it doesn't stop all people from smoking, but it has lowered the rate significantly.
Anyway, my point is that PDH's statement is far from laughable; it reflects a rational and humane notion about the potential for government to help its citizens. After all, that is why governments are formed in the first place.
This is on a national level. DUH!
Yes, and that would be one reason to have health care for yourself. Keep digging the hole you're standing in.
You're too funny! The government has NEVER been effective or efficient at handling the Economy, much less know what is best for society.
Really? Government cannot even operate itself. Much less help citizens find or get or receive affordable health care.
Of course they did. Too bad you don't know why? But are willingly to accept what you've been told.
Really? It's not rational. It's not actually humane either.
I don't see much point in continuing this discussion. We obviously have a different view of the role and efficiency of government. I have worked in both government and private sector jobs, and it is not true that the private sector is more efficient for all things. Private companies' primary goal is to make a profit, so their efficiencies are directed toward their bottom line. In the case of health care, that means situations such as prescribing a less desirable drug because it costs less, or ordering tests that cost more for the patient but provide greater profit for the company.
But, I can see it really won't matter what evidence is provided for some people, as their notion of government is warped and rigid and will not be changed by facts.
"Of course they did. Too bad you don't know why? But are willingly to accept what you've been told
I picked this out because I'd like to see just one factual, well-reasoned response from you. Please tell me why, since you are claiming I am ignorant on the subject. I would like to be educated, with actual facts, of course.
That's not laughable at all. Any decent government should be obligated to provide a basic social infrastructure for it's citizens and that would, of course, include universal healthcare.
So why can't an individual purchase health care across state lines, seeing as it is now a national issue?
Health insurance is currently regulated at the state level. Would you prefer it be regulated at the federal level, because that is what would have to happen in order for it to be sold across state lines.
It is not being regulated at the federal level, are you sure?
U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli
"The (health insurance) market is regulated at the federal level in very significant ways already," Verrilli told the chief justice.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03 … z1z7Tmqlou
This article explains it quite well.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/0 … uce-costs/
From the article:
Right now, in nearly every state, insurance is regulated at the state level.
nobody wants to make a major business investment in health insurance at a time when the entire regulatory landscape could be upended by the Supreme Court.""
Haven't things been upended by the Supreme Court?
I don't know. I am not an expert on today's decision. Why don't you explain it to me? The article dated 5/11/12 explicitly states that "right now, in nearly ever state, insurance is regulated at the state level."
I am in the same situation. Why I asked if this would allow the purchase of policies across state lines. I am curious?
Let's not jump the gun here to end of life.
Let's talk about here and now.
Let's talk about millions of Americans who want to take responsibility for their health today. But rack rate for doctors visits is out of their reach. So they go without.
Rack rate for hospital care would bankrupt them in second.
So they go without.
There are only so many "go withouts" until NOT getting care escalates the type and amount of care you need. Which ends up even more expensive.
And who pays?
WE ALL PAY.
This mandate IS about taking personal responsibility for your own health by carrying insurance so that you get preventive care and have protection against hospitalizations or major illness.
I simply don't understand the resistance.
It's a benefit to individuals and families and a boon to society.
That is wrong.
Ordinarily I agree with you buddy.
This time, I don't - not on all points. Here are my objections:
Looking to the rest of the world is what every member of our (albeit oversized and lacking in personal accountability themselves) federal government does - our policies and decisions have been either by the assistance and guidance of foreign nations, or a parroted copy of other countries for some time. They're slightly modified, of course, to cater to the American people dependent on a wide range of variables, but the sentiment is there.
Making America's health system higher quality and lower cost to the individual is going to be a matter of looking at countries whose health care systems work and making the necessary changes to adopt a working model. Our system is not working, so what we need to do is see where similar countries to ours are doing it *right.*
The basic problem I see is this: Who should pay the price? The individual who spent upwards of $200,000 on their schooling and skills, the individual we look to for expertise and professional medical care, who is providing the service and thusly forging their own life and overcoming the costs of reaching the point of providing the service? Or, the individual who has an illness which needs attention, who is using the service, time, and expertise of their service provider?
This is the problem I am seeing: The process begins with the incredibly high cost of tuition for VITAL fields of study. Anyone can go get a two year degree in creative writing and spend 20 to 40 grand to have a frivilous college education. But doctors? Ten times that, easy. Combine that with the kind of work being done - I consider their high rate of pay to be an offset for their tuition, but also for hazard pay. It is from THIS, and unregulated pricing structures for medicine, and so much wasted time from people who don't NEED a doctor's attention but get it because every visit must be seen by a doctor, right? The whole cycle needs picking apart and reworking.
Hrmph. Don't know why I spent the time replying - looks like a fight and extreme labeling is all that was wanted here.
by Mary's Crumbs 10 years ago
Conservatives, how do you feel about Chief Justice Roberts siding in favor of upholding ObamaCare?In what can only be characterized as a victory for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision which basically upholds the The Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice...
by Longhunter 10 years ago
Now that Obama has already taken a "shot" at the Supreme Court, what do you think Obama's reaction will be if Obamacare is struck down?
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
This latest 5/4 Supreme Court decision on DACA is inexplicable. John Roberts, as Chief Justice should know better. This is a series of miss steps by John Roberts ever since the decision on the ACA. Why is this happening to our high courts? It was John Roberts who claim there is no politics in the...
by ga anderson 23 months ago
If you, (can), put aside all the political charges and machinations against her nomination, what is your opinion of the qualifications of our newest Supreme Court Justice? I think she is exactly the kind of person we should want to sit on our Supreme Court.To be clear, I strongly support her...
by Readmikenow 21 months ago
Texas Files Multi-State Election Lawsuit, Ensuring That Fraud Is Heard By SCOTUS NowOn Monday, just before midnight, the State of Texas filed a lawsuit that is far more important than all of the others surrounding the presidential election of November 3rd.Texas brought a suit against four states...
by Sharlee 4 years ago
My question - In general, how do you feel about the right to religious freedom being used in this specific Supreme Court decision? Does one have the right to discriminate due to a religious belief? The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of a Colorado cake baker who refused to make a...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|