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

mascale

Gold Member
Feb 22, 2009
6,836
800
130
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:
Could you get any more disingenuous in your thread title?

You own posted link says this...

"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.'"

He doubts the costs will be lowered, you incredible moron!
 
"Justice Kennedy: 'Based on the assumption that the cost of those policies would be lowered...

Disingenuous at least. Lying sack of shit? Probably so.

My goodness, did you really think your thread title would be accepted as fact?
 
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.
 
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:
Pretty safe assumption considering that socialist countries pay less than half we do, right?
 
It's in the transcripts, of March 28 proceedings.

)

'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?

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.
 
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.

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.
 
Pretty safe assumption considering that socialist countries pay less than half we do, right?

ANd have nowhere near the freedoms we do because they are socialists, which means they make no where near the money that citizens here make. So obviously they would pay less. This bill forces people to buy something they may not want, that is the bottom line, it is an overbearing reach of government, which is a violation of individual liberties. One of these days you lefties are gonna wake up and wonder where the fuck your liberties went, and all along you voted them away without even knowing it, and all because it made you feel good inside.
 
Last edited:
Congress created an Act. The Act is under judicial review. Key provisions are summarized in the noted portion of the transcript.

"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.'"

That is not a bending-over-even-frontwards: Statement of what the three days have been about.

It is not even a bending-over-backwards: Statement of what the Affordable Health Care Act was about.

The Conservatives in litigant States are directly attempting to raise the cost of health care for everyone, in the United States.

Justice Kennedy does not directly so state. It is in the transcript, instead!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(You have the right to remain silent--and even buy the liquor if you meet foolish limitations imposed by phony ID. Justice Gingsburg can even to be 21 again, in America!)
 
Pretty safe assumption considering that socialist countries pay less than half we do, right?

ANd have nowhere near the freedoms we do because they are socialists, which means they make no where near the money that citizens here make. So obviously they would pay less. This bill forces people to buy something they may not want, that is the bottom line, it is an overbearing reach of government, which is a violation of individual liberties. One of these days you lefties are gonna wake up and wonder where the fuck your liberties went, and all along you voted them away without even knowing it, and all because it made you feel good inside.

Really? My, what a chauvanistic dumb fuck you are.

STANDARD OF LIVING WORLD STATS, the revealing measurement

Top thirty countries (HDI range from 0.963 down to 0.878)
Norway (=)
Iceland (↑ 5)
Australia (=)
Luxembourg (↑ 11)
Canada (↓ 1)
Sweden (↓ 4)
Switzerland (↑ 4)
Ireland (↑ 2)
Belgium (↓ 3)
United States (↓ 2)
Japan (↓ 2)
Netherlands (↓ 7)
Finland (=)
Denmark (↑ 3)
United Kingdom (↓ 3)
France (=)
Austria (↓ 3)
Italy (↑ 3)
New Zealand (↓ 1)
Germany (↓ 1)
Spain (↓ 1)
Hong Kong (↑ 1)
Israel (↓ 1)
Greece (=)
Singapore (=)
Slovenia (↑ 1)
Portugal (↓ 1)
South Korea (=)
Cyprus (↑ 1)
Barbados (↓ 1)
 

Forum List

Back
Top