SHould the mandate or the entire bill go?

[VaYank5150]

The entire thing should go, and be replaced by a single-payer system.

Which is exactly what will happen eventually. If the Court strikes down the ACA, it will happen sooner.

IF the USSC strikes down the law, what will Romney do for stump speeches?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The entire thing should go, and be replaced by a single-payer system.

Which is exactly what will happen eventually. If the Court strikes down the ACA, it will happen sooner.

Monopolies are bad for consumers. Single payer would be a giant monopoly with no competition to ensure quality and value.

I thought you were fond of OWS? Why do you want one big mega-company running all our insurance, i thought big was bad?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The entire thing should go, and be replaced by a single-payer system.

Which is exactly what will happen eventually. If the Court strikes down the ACA, it will happen sooner.

IF the USSC strikes down the law, what will Romney do for stump speeches?

Say "I'm glad the supreme court agrees with my position that health care is a states issue and not the pervue of the federal govt. Heck the feds already know this as they have made it illegal to sell health insurance in an interstate manner"

Its a neutral at worst, a win at best for Romney.

 

[Truthmatters]

the right wing court will shut it all down.

So the right wing court will punish Romeny for his republican idea.

Then we will have to go with universal healthcare because it will be that or no healthcare that most Americans can afford.

Only rich people going to doctors will distroy the medical system and leave many Americans to die.

 

[Truthmatters]

Win for Romeny?

what bullshit

 

[VaYank5150]

The entire thing should go, and be replaced by a single-payer system.

Which is exactly what will happen eventually. If the Court strikes down the ACA, it will happen sooner.

IF the USSC strikes down the law, what will Romney do for stump speeches?

Say "I'm glad the supreme court agrees with my position that health care is a states issue and not the pervue of the federal govt. Heck the feds already know this as they have made it illegal to sell health insurance in an interstate manner"

Its a neutral at worst, a win at best for Romney.

Tell that to all of the voters with pre-existing conditions...

 

[Dragon]

Monopolies are bad for consumers. Single payer would be a giant monopoly with no competition to ensure quality and value.

You have theory. I have reality. Most of the advanced world has a single-payer system, and their health-care consumers are far better off than Americans. When theory contradicts reality, it's always the theory that's wrong, not the reality.

A for-profit monopoly would be bad for consumers, by the way. But we can't treat health care as a free market, because it isn't one and never can be one. You can only have a free market when consumers are free not to buy -- and I don't mean not to buy from any one provider, I mean not to buy from ANY provider whatsoever -- and when merchants are free not to sell.

There's the flaw in your theory, and the reason why it does not comport with reality.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

IF the USSC strikes down the law, what will Romney do for stump speeches?

Say "I'm glad the supreme court agrees with my position that health care is a states issue and not the pervue of the federal govt. Heck the feds already know this as they have made it illegal to sell health insurance in an interstate manner"

Its a neutral at worst, a win at best for Romney.

Tell that to all of the voters with pre-existing conditions...

Why can't Romney come out in favor of small, targeted, legislation to deal with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes which many in my family suffer from? This can be done without violating the constitution on a federal level.

There it is, he can deal with the issue you brought up very easily.

 

[The Rabbi]

Does anyone know WHY the justices refused to actually read the bill they are being paid to rule on?

Asked and answered. Cruel and Unusual punishment. This isn't surprising since no one has ever read the bill. We pay legislators who never read the bill before they voted on it. The people who wrote it never read it. It was written in sections, by committee. Those who wrote a section never read the sections written by others.

So, in your humble opinion, the justices can make an informed decision on the Constitutionality of the bill without ever reading it?

They read it. But not the whole thing. Worse is that the people sponsoring the bill never read it either. In fact, I am not sure anyone responsible for the bill in any capacity has read the entire bill.
The issue is really the mandate, which they certainly read. The rest of the bill hinges on the mandate.
I think the court does not need to be in the position of deciding which provisions are separable and which aren't. Send the whole mess back to Congress to deal with.

 

[Two Thumbs]

From the arguments it sure looks like the mandate part of Obamacare is toast. The question was argued on the last day whether the entire bill or just that part of it should be struck down. Justice Ginsburg argued that striking the entire bill would be a radical exercise in judicial power. Justice Scalia argued that not striking the entire bill would be an exercise in judicial power.
I am inclined to agree with Scalia (surprise). Since so much of the bill hinges on the mandate leaving any part of it would mean essentially the justices deciding what should or shouldn't be the law. Which is really Congress' role. Better to nix the whole thing and let Congress start over.

While the proper thing to do seems to be to strike it all down.

I'd rather not.

there were some very good rules in there that would protect private citizens from getting fucked over by megga corp ins companies.

Dig out what is and is not Constitutional, rid ourselves of the useless tripe, and stick with some solid basics.

 

[occupied]

If it is struck down it will not be something for Romney, or any other republican, to crow about. When the afterglow of victory fades it will not take long for the reality to sink in that republicans now wholly own every misdeed and horror that the law, however imperfect, would have prevented.

 

[VaYank5150]

Say "I'm glad the supreme court agrees with my position that health care is a states issue and not the pervue of the federal govt. Heck the feds already know this as they have made it illegal to sell health insurance in an interstate manner"

Its a neutral at worst, a win at best for Romney.

Tell that to all of the voters with pre-existing conditions...

Why can't Romney come out in favor of small, targeted, legislation to deal with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes which many in my family suffer from? This can be done without violating the constitution on a federal level.

There it is, he can deal with the issue you brought up very easily.

But you know as well as I do that he won't. The "conservatives" will never let him.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Monopolies are bad for consumers. Single payer would be a giant monopoly with no competition to ensure quality and value.

You have theory. I have reality. Most of the advanced world has a single-payer system, and their health-care consumers are far better off than Americans. When theory contradicts reality, it's always the theory that's wrong, not the reality.

A for-profit monopoly would be bad for consumers, by the way. But we can't treat health care as a free market, because it isn't one and never can be one. You can only have a free market when consumers are free not to buy -- and I don't mean not to buy from any one provider, I mean not to buy from ANY provider whatsoever -- and when merchants are free not to sell.

There's the flaw in your theory, and the reason why it does not comport with reality.

There is a flaw in your theory too, the govt's track record in this type of thing. The Post Office and AMtrack are 2 examples of this flaw, my personal health can not afford to let the same people run my healthcare that run those organizations.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Tell that to all of the voters with pre-existing conditions...

Why can't Romney come out in favor of small, targeted, legislation to deal with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes which many in my family suffer from? This can be done without violating the constitution on a federal level.

There it is, he can deal with the issue you brought up very easily.

But you know as well as I do that he won't. The "conservatives" will never let him.

But conservatives support that idea already, in fact it was one of the arguments many made againt obamacare during the run up to the vote on it.

 

[VaYank5150]

Why can't Romney come out in favor of small, targeted, legislation to deal with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes which many in my family suffer from? This can be done without violating the constitution on a federal level.

There it is, he can deal with the issue you brought up very easily.

But you know as well as I do that he won't. The "conservatives" will never let him.

But conservatives support that idea already, in fact it was one of the arguments many made againt obamacare during the run up to the vote on it.

I thought you just said in an earlier post that this should be left up to the states to deal with??

 

[Dr.House]

The problem with only striking out the individual mandate is that democrats deliberately wrote the bill without a severability clause. They did that because they felt that the bill was so sweeping that some of it would be acceptable. Without a severability clause, even the acceptable parts would have to do. The court would never go that far. It was a miscalculation, the entire bill must fail because unconstitutional parts cannot be severed out. A second reason was that democrats felt with a severability clause the bill would be dismantled piece by piece over the course of years hampering its implementation.

Suggesting that the Justices read all 2007 pages to find if they can divine a severability clause themselves didn't work.

Does anyone know WHY the justices refused to actually read the bill they are being paid to rule on?

Precedence...

The lawmakers didn't read it when they signed it...

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The entire thing should go, and be replaced by a single-payer system.

Which is exactly what will happen eventually. If the Court strikes down the ACA, it will happen sooner.

IF the USSC strikes down the law, what will Romney do for stump speeches?

Say "I'm glad the supreme court agrees with my position that health care is a states issue and not the pervue of the federal govt. Heck the feds already know this as they have made it illegal to sell health insurance in an interstate manner"

Its a neutral at worst, a win at best for Romney.

Win for Romeny?

what bullshit

Its a neutral at worst, a win at best for Romney.

How is it a win? he can talk about how he supports the 10th ammendment and states rights and thus pander to the far right, libertarians, and teapartiers.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Personally, I think the whole pile of shit should go but as a matter of law, I'm not sure it works that way.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

From the arguments it sure looks like the mandate part of Obamacare is toast. The question was argued on the last day whether the entire bill or just that part of it should be struck down. Justice Ginsburg argued that striking the entire bill would be a radical exercise in judicial power. Justice Scalia argued that not striking the entire bill would be an exercise in judicial power.
I am inclined to agree with Scalia (surprise). Since so much of the bill hinges on the mandate leaving any part of it would mean essentially the justices deciding what should or shouldn't be the law. Which is really Congress' role. Better to nix the whole thing and let Congress start over.

While the proper thing to do seems to be to strike it all down.

I'd rather not.

there were some very good rules in there that would protect private citizens from getting fucked over by megga corp ins companies.

Dig out what is and is not Constitutional, rid ourselves of the useless tripe, and stick with some solid basics.

I agree there is some good stuff in the bill. However the bill doesn't stand with parts of it being unconstitutional. They need to throw this one out and re-introduce the good stuff from the bill in a smaller bill that does not contain provisions that violate the federal govt's authority as outlined in our constitution.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Does anyone know WHY the justices refused to actually read the bill they are being paid to rule on?

Asked and answered. Cruel and Unusual punishment. This isn't surprising since no one has ever read the bill. We pay legislators who never read the bill before they voted on it. The people who wrote it never read it. It was written in sections, by committee. Those who wrote a section never read the sections written by others.

So, in your humble opinion, the justices can make an informed decision on the Constitutionality of the bill without ever reading it?

People are paid to read bills for them and break it down to the nuts and bolts.

there's no way they could read 2000 pages and grasp the enormity of what it all means by themselves.