ObamaCare is Going Back to Court! And this Case is Much Stronger Than The Last!

[Rozman]

Imagine for one minute republicans doing something like this .
The Democrats and the media would still be screaming about it.

The response from the Libs on this matter will be ObamaCare is done get over it.
You guys just don't want poor people to have access to Health care.

 

[Publius1787]

The damn thing has failed to give people their health insurance. It has done the opposite as it has raisin the price of insurance and dropped more people.

I mean wtf?

It has done none of the above. It hasn't failed to do anything yet. Once in place, we will see weather or not it is workable and what effects it will have. As of now, everyone is just speculating. Remember this simple fact; before the ACA was passed, insurance premiums were increasing by 10 to 15% every single year. It was becoming a nightmare. So many of you seem to forget this fact or are unaware of it because you only pay a portion of your health insurance premiums as the majority is covered by your employer. I pay my own, and I've seen how the cost has increased over the years.

Because of ACA I will lose my health care plan at the end of this year and so will a lot of others I know who are not 65 yet. On the other hand those who work part time, 30 hours or more can now purchase health care through their employer. Expensive but available. I have been looking at alternatives and they are all expensive, relative to what I have been paying. Keep the payment lower and the deductible sky rockets. I talked to HR and they told me to go to the Obamacare site because that is making health care affordable. The did seem genuinely surprised when I told them how un-affordable the rates really were.

I expect massive bailouts and government intervention by executive fiat so as to keep Obamacare alive in the near future. If the bailouts keep prices low, Democrats will point to the ACA and tell us that it's working. Wait and see.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Wrong again. Roberts didn't have the authority to rule on Article 1 Section 7 grounds because those were not the grounds the individual mandate was challenged or defended on. Furthermore, when it is the plain language of the Constitution, though procedural in nature, it is still more than substantive. If it were House and Senate procedural rules in question the SCOTUS would refuse to accept the case. Seeing as it is a violation of the plain and very clear language of the Constitution, or rules of which cannot be changed by the House and Senate, the complaint holds both substance and merit.

What?

Then that would mean Citizen's United and many other decisions would be bounced.

Of course..that's not the case even with your parameters. Because you are cherry picking.

they're always cherry picking .... its was in the house first
introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D–NY) on September 17, 2009
Committee consideration by: Ways and Means
Passed the House on October 8, 2009 (416–0)
Passed the Senate as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" on December 24, 2009 (60–39) with amendment
House agreed to Senate amendment on March 21, 2010 (219–212)
Signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010
Major amendments
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection and Repayment of Exchange Subsidy Overpayments Act of 2011

It was in the House as one bill the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" passed (Placed on Calendar and introduced into the Senate - [H.R.3590.PCS]) was completely gutted by the Senate and utilizing the same H.R. Became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Amendment in Senate - [H.R.3590.AS]). That is unconstitutional as utilizing H.R.3590 as the Patient Protect Affordable Care Act STARTED in the Senate not the House.

 

[Publius1787]

Who moved this to the healthcare forum? If you were going to move it anywhere it should be in the "Law and Justice System" forum. This thread has less to do with healthcare as it does the legal questions behind Obamacares passage and it's future in the courts. Whoever moved this thread obviously did not read the op or the title of the thread.

If this thread was moved after spending 7 months in the Politics forum, why was it that this one stayed? http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/333157-aaps-v-sebelius-ex-rel-obama-hellcare.html .

 

[Rozman]

I thought a strong case against it was argued the first time and we all saw what happened.

 

[Publius1787]

I thought a strong case against it was argued the first time and we all saw what happened.

Now that the mandate is legally considered to be a tax as opposed to a penalty a strong case for the origination clause has arisen that would have not otherwise been the case.

 

[oreo]

I don't think a procedural act is capable of overturning Obamacare. The court may decide however that they have made a huge mistake by calling it a tax, and not what it actually is a mandate.

 

[Publius1787]

I don't think a procedural act is capable of overturning Obamacare. The court may decide however that they have made a huge mistake by calling it a tax, and not what it actually is a mandate.

It's not just procedural. There is a damn good reason the Founding Framers demanded that all bills for raising revenue originate in the House, and it goes well beyond procedure!

 

[dblack]

I don't think a procedural act is capable of overturning Obamacare. The court may decide however that they have made a huge mistake by calling it a tax, and not what it actually is a mandate.

It's no more, or less, of a "mandate" than the home mortgage tax credit.

 

[BobPlumb]

You pay a tax penalty for not buying a house. In fact, the bigger the house you don't buy, the bigger the penalty you are paying.

You pay a tax penalty for not having children. In fact, the more kids you choose not to have, the bigger the penalty you are paying.

There are thousands of tax penalties for not going along with the government's behavioral modification and social experimentation programs. We actually vote for our politicians based on their promises to put more tax penalties in the tax code! The more tax penalities they put in, the more we like them!

Don't believe me? Just try to get even a dyed-in-the-wool post modern conservative to go along with eliminating the tax penalty for not buying a house. They won't do it. They will, in fact, come after you with fangs and claws if you even try.


So it is way, way, WAY too late for anyone to be complaining about a new tax penalty for not buying health insurance. You blew it.

There is a big difference between granting a tax deduction for an action (paying interest on a mortgage) and taxing an inaction (not buying a product.)

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I don't think a procedural act is capable of overturning Obamacare. The court may decide however that they have made a huge mistake by calling it a tax, and not what it actually is a mandate.

It's no more, or less, of a "mandate" than the home mortgage tax credit.

The problem with that argument is you have to make the choice to invest in owning a home, rather than a government pushing you into making such a decision. How many Americans do you think actually enjoy their own home to profit from such a tax credit compared to those who can only afford to rent? There is nothing you can name that every American citizen in this country is forced into buying without first evaluating some form of personal decision behind it.

 

[Publius1787]

I don't think a procedural act is capable of overturning Obamacare. The court may decide however that they have made a huge mistake by calling it a tax, and not what it actually is a mandate.

It's no more, or less, of a "mandate" than the home mortgage tax credit.

The Supreme Court has already struck this idea down. There is no power for the individual mandate in the commerce clause.

 

[dblack]

I don't think a procedural act is capable of overturning Obamacare. The court may decide however that they have made a huge mistake by calling it a tax, and not what it actually is a mandate.

It's no more, or less, of a "mandate" than the home mortgage tax credit.

The Supreme Court has already struck this idea down. There is no power for the individual mandate in the commerce clause.

???

My comment is the view on which Roberts based his decision.

 

[JakeStarkey]

ObamaCare is Going Back to Court! And this Case is Much Stronger Than The Last!

No, it is not.

 

[rdean]

Republicans are ghouls. Not only do they believe in "let him die", but they want people to really suffer first. The reason they don't have a health care plan is because this was it.

 

[dblack]

Republicans are ghouls. Not only do they believe in "let him die", but they want people to really suffer first. The reason they don't have a health care plan is because this was it.

You forgot about the puppy kicking. Get it straight!

 

[Vox]

Get over it. How many times does this thing need to ho to court? Damn obstructionists.

as much as it is repealed.

it's unconstitutional.