Justice Kennedy--"The Cost of These Policies Would Be Lowered" under Obamacare!

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by mascale, Mar 29, 2012.

  1. mascale
    Offline

    mascale VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,033
    Thanks Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +453
    So Government At Work now looks as follows:

    Starting with the note of Kneedler before the Supreme Court:

    "150 million people in this country already get their insurance through - through their employers. What Congress did in seeking to augment that was to add a provision requiring employers to purchase insurance."

    "Justice Kennedy: 'Based on the assumption that the cost of those policies would be lowered by - by certain provisions which are by hypothesis - we are not sure - by hypothesis are in doubt.'"

    Like Romney, Santorum, McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, Bachmann, Gingrich, Paul, Paul et. al., The objective of the suit now trying to dismantle ObamaCare, at the Supreme Court: The objective is to throw out the Individual Mandate so that businesses will have to pay more for their plans.

    It's in the transcripts, of March 28 proceedings.

    Still left is the question of whether or not the non-payer--of health insurance--benefits from the community of payers, subsidizing medical care in any civilization worldwide. Most would say that the non-payer, too, is in the market. The Old South, and even Mark Twain, actually had real name for the kinds of folks that Conservatives claim now to really be for. "Rugged Individualist" is not the actual concept that usually was applied, in the Old South. A far more colorful concept of "Civil Rights:" was instead, evoked.

    In America, suddenly: Anyone will be free, not to pay: And be free to spread the plague(?)!

    Law is like this, when done at the federal level with Conservatives in charge: Through the Party of Abraham Lincoln.

    "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
    (Firewater of Soliciter General not made of good stuff, either--Sent before the Court at the apparent direction of the Harvard Law School, professor-types.)
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2012
  2. Conservative
    Offline

    Conservative Type 40

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    17,082
    Thanks Received:
    2,026
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +2,030
    Could you get any more disingenuous in your thread title?

    You own posted link says this...

    He doubts the costs will be lowered, you incredible moron!
     
  3. SniperFire
    Offline

    SniperFire Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    13,627
    Thanks Received:
    1,219
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Inside Your Head
    Ratings:
    +1,223
    'Justice Kennedy--"The Cost of These Policies Would Be Lowered" under Obamacare!'

    He said such costs claims were DUBIOUS. Are all the lib posters here dumbasses?
     
  4. eflatminor
    Online

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,238
    Thanks Received:
    1,399
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    Disingenuous at least. Lying sack of shit? Probably so.

    My goodness, did you really think your thread title would be accepted as fact?
     
  5. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    It's what happened in Mass. Which is what finally convinced the President to go with it.

    I still don't like it. HMOs really have to go. But it's better then doing nothing.
     
  6. mascale
    Offline

    mascale VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,033
    Thanks Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +453
    No doubt anyone is alluding to the fact that apparently the best that the Ivy League has to offer was being transcripted.

    Actually, Mr. Kneedler would go forward with the concept that cost assumptions were either basis-free, or not at issue. Justice Kennedy was alluding to the Actual Matter of Affordability, via the Exchanges: Consequent any upholding of the Individual Mandate.

    The hypothesis regarding the Individual Mandate is that such price controlling would not be available in the rest of the provisions of the Act--since that might not be Constitutional.

    The misreading of all parties, in the matter, regards this fool who actually pays nothing--and yet is a participant in the market. Any fool at all, payer or non-payer, is a beneficiary of the market. Any such fool is clearly a participant.

    "Fool," of course: Is more modern concept than the one actually be applied in the OP!

    "Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
    (Anyone notes that even in the Schvartz Ivy League, at Stanford: "Give 'em! The Bird! The Bird! The Bird!" is likely not a viable substitue for their previously, far more Native American concept!)
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2012
  7. Decepticon
    Offline

    Decepticon BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,138
    Thanks Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +189
    Pretty safe assumption considering that socialist countries pay less than half we do, right?
     
  8. LordBrownTrout
    Offline

    LordBrownTrout Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    15,490
    Thanks Received:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    South Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,352
    Nothing is ever lowered when government takes over. The bill needs to be struck down, sent back to congress, make a constitutional bill that will benefit all.
     
  9. grunt11b
    Offline

    grunt11b VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,649
    Thanks Received:
    500
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    In Reality
    Ratings:
    +501
    Pretty much. They just tell half truths, just like their leadership does. They cannot win a fact based argument so they have to lie and manipulate.
     
  10. grunt11b
    Offline

    grunt11b VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    4,649
    Thanks Received:
    500
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    In Reality
    Ratings:
    +501
    In this case, doing nothing is better than enslaving the entire nation with something the majority does not want and giving the federal government unprecedented powers in telling you what you have to buy. Yes, doing nothing would have been much better. And just the fact that even Justice Kennedy is skeptical of the mandate speaks volumes for this bill.
     

Share This Page