Supreme Court Rules 7-2 on Obamacare

[Rigby5]

I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.

The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.

Since the Federal government was created by the States, how can the States not have standing to sue the Federal government? If they don't have standing, who does?

You were right the first time, it was a cop out.

If I could go back in time and tell the founding fathers one thing, it would be that three branches of government keeping each other in check is a stupid idea. They are not keeping each other in check, they have the same incentive. Bigger government = more power for them.

The founders should have preempted the stupid Judicial review and made the federal government get ALL LAWS ratified by the State legislatures before they took effect. That is a check and balance, not branches of the same government

I don't think you really understand by what "standing" actually means. Of course the states can sue the federal government. That's not what the problem is. To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint. You can't sue just for shits and giggles. You have to show that the government is actually harming you and how.

The plaintiffs weren't able to show that. Their complaint was dismissed because they didn't actually have something to complain about.

You're the one who doesn't know what standing means.

"To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint."

No, that isn't what standing means

The folks who tried to overturn the ACA (yet again) could not show harm....that is why they didn't have standing.....



They have had 10 years and they still have failed.....and Roberts is the type of chief justice that really enforces standing....which is basically a way to keep bullshit cases off the docket....


All you folks have to do is find someone who was actually harmed by the ACA and try again.....

Everyone is harmed by ACA, but the problem is things were even worse before ACA.
The solution has to be more fundamental.
Get employers out of our heath care.

Yes, I want to get employers out of healthcare and have it funded by taxpayers...I also want healthcare to be truly portable - so people don't feel like they have to stay at a job instead of doing something else because of health insurance....that definitely isn't freedom...

Exactly.
Not hard to fix.
Just end the 1957 employee benefit tax write off to employers.
Then the wealthy and poor will all be in the same boat and will all want a solution that benefits everyone.

And I personally think public health care is the solution, because then you cut health care costs in half, like we do with Medicare, VA, and all the countries with public health care.
You don't want to just pay profit making health care industries.
Instead you want us to own the hospitals publicly, and hire the doctors/nurses ourselves.

 

[Donald H]

The real damage to the big insurance companies will come when the American people of all political stripes see that their neighbour with the ACA is benefiting so much by it.

LOL - are you kidding? They wrote ACA. Google Liz Fowler.

Correct.
ACA was written in order to benefit private insurance companies, by mandating private health insurance.
Those who think ACA has a public option, are totally wrong.
The problems come from 3rd party payers and prepaying consumers, so ACA fixed almost nothing.

Nothing can improve until the political hate for Obama is eliminated.

If there weren't desirable qualities in the ACA, the political right wouldn't be tearing it's hair out over the Scotus decision.

The benefits of changing to something that works for all Americans, far outweighs the benefits of hating for political reasons.

 

[kaz]

I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.

The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.

Since the Federal government was created by the States, how can the States not have standing to sue the Federal government? If they don't have standing, who does?

You were right the first time, it was a cop out.

If I could go back in time and tell the founding fathers one thing, it would be that three branches of government keeping each other in check is a stupid idea. They are not keeping each other in check, they have the same incentive. Bigger government = more power for them.

The founders should have preempted the stupid Judicial review and made the federal government get ALL LAWS ratified by the State legislatures before they took effect. That is a check and balance, not branches of the same government

I don't think you really understand by what "standing" actually means. Of course the states can sue the federal government. That's not what the problem is. To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint. You can't sue just for shits and giggles. You have to show that the government is actually harming you and how.

The plaintiffs weren't able to show that. Their complaint was dismissed because they didn't actually have something to complain about.

You're the one who doesn't know what standing means.

"To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint."

No, that isn't what standing means

Standing in Federal Court​

At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury

standing

www.law.cornell.edu

Right, that isn't what you said it means

 

[colfax_m]

I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.

The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.

Since the Federal government was created by the States, how can the States not have standing to sue the Federal government? If they don't have standing, who does?

You were right the first time, it was a cop out.

If I could go back in time and tell the founding fathers one thing, it would be that three branches of government keeping each other in check is a stupid idea. They are not keeping each other in check, they have the same incentive. Bigger government = more power for them.

The founders should have preempted the stupid Judicial review and made the federal government get ALL LAWS ratified by the State legislatures before they took effect. That is a check and balance, not branches of the same government

I don't think you really understand by what "standing" actually means. Of course the states can sue the federal government. That's not what the problem is. To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint. You can't sue just for shits and giggles. You have to show that the government is actually harming you and how.

The plaintiffs weren't able to show that. Their complaint was dismissed because they didn't actually have something to complain about.

You're the one who doesn't know what standing means.

"To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint."

No, that isn't what standing means

Standing in Federal Court​

At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury

standing

www.law.cornell.edu

Right, that isn't what you said it means

Sure it is. To have standing you have to have a legitimate complaint. What constitutes a legitimate complaint is described above, starting with an injury in fact.

You seem confused by what standing means.

 

[Donald H]

I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.

The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.

Since the Federal government was created by the States, how can the States not have standing to sue the Federal government? If they don't have standing, who does?

You were right the first time, it was a cop out.

If I could go back in time and tell the founding fathers one thing, it would be that three branches of government keeping each other in check is a stupid idea. They are not keeping each other in check, they have the same incentive. Bigger government = more power for them.

The founders should have preempted the stupid Judicial review and made the federal government get ALL LAWS ratified by the State legislatures before they took effect. That is a check and balance, not branches of the same government

I don't think you really understand by what "standing" actually means. Of course the states can sue the federal government. That's not what the problem is. To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint. You can't sue just for shits and giggles. You have to show that the government is actually harming you and how.

The plaintiffs weren't able to show that. Their complaint was dismissed because they didn't actually have something to complain about.

You're the one who doesn't know what standing means.

"To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint."

No, that isn't what standing means

The folks who tried to overturn the ACA (yet again) could not show harm....that is why they didn't have standing.....



They have had 10 years and they still have failed.....and Roberts is the type of chief justice that really enforces standing....which is basically a way to keep bullshit cases off the docket....


All you folks have to do is find someone who was actually harmed by the ACA and try again.....

Everyone is harmed by ACA, but the problem is things were even worse before ACA.
The solution has to be more fundamental.
Get employers out of our heath care.

Yes, I want to get employers out of healthcare and have it funded by taxpayers...I also want healthcare to be truly portable - so people don't feel like they have to stay at a job instead of doing something else because of health insurance....that definitely isn't freedom...

Exactly.
Not hard to fix.
Just end the 1957 employee benefit tax write off to employers.
Then the wealthy and poor will all be in the same boat and will all want a solution that benefits everyone.

And I personally think public health care is the solution, because then you cut health care costs in half, like we do with Medicare, VA, and all the countries with public health care.
You don't want to just pay profit making health care industries.
Instead you want us to own the hospitals publicly, and hire the doctors/nurses ourselves.

Employer contributipmd are a part of the world's most successful HC systems.

Understand that Americans really don't have the credibility to even start to make suggestions. Your system is a dismal failure in all ways.

 

[TNHarley]

HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.

Health insurance hadn't been invented yet, like so many other things that weren't around when it was written, you Constitutional scholar you.

Indeed. So, going by what you just pointed out, a Constitutional Amendment is required.

 

[kaz]

I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.

The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.

Since the Federal government was created by the States, how can the States not have standing to sue the Federal government? If they don't have standing, who does?

You were right the first time, it was a cop out.

If I could go back in time and tell the founding fathers one thing, it would be that three branches of government keeping each other in check is a stupid idea. They are not keeping each other in check, they have the same incentive. Bigger government = more power for them.

The founders should have preempted the stupid Judicial review and made the federal government get ALL LAWS ratified by the State legislatures before they took effect. That is a check and balance, not branches of the same government

I don't think you really understand by what "standing" actually means. Of course the states can sue the federal government. That's not what the problem is. To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint. You can't sue just for shits and giggles. You have to show that the government is actually harming you and how.

The plaintiffs weren't able to show that. Their complaint was dismissed because they didn't actually have something to complain about.

You're the one who doesn't know what standing means.

"To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint."

No, that isn't what standing means

The folks who tried to overturn the ACA (yet again) could not show harm....that is why they didn't have standing.....



They have had 10 years and they still have failed.....and Roberts is the type of chief justice that really enforces standing....which is basically a way to keep bullshit cases off the docket....


All you folks have to do is find someone who was actually harmed by the ACA and try again.....

There is more to it than that

 

[TNHarley]

Government fucked up our healthcare, and all these federal supremacists are cheering our corrupt govt retaining more power than it is supposed to have. To further fuck up our lives.
You people are so goddamn stupid.

 

[Donald H]

The real damage to the big insurance companies will come when the American people of all political stripes see that their neighbour with the ACA is benefiting so much by it.

LOL - are you kidding? They wrote ACA. Google Liz Fowler.

Correct.
ACA was written in order to benefit private insurance companies, by mandating private health insurance.
Those who think ACA has a public option, are totally wrong.
The problems come from 3rd party payers and prepaying consumers, so ACA fixed almost nothing.

You're lost in your lack of understanding of how a successful HC system works.

But you Americans already know all the answers so what's to do but to watch the sideshow as the wealthy ruling class stick it up you asses for the foreseeable future.

 

[Donald H]

Government fucked up our healthcare, and all these federal supremacists are cheering our corrupt govt retaining more power than it is supposed to have. To further fuck up our lives.
You people are so goddamn stupid.

Government in the world's leading countries got it right on Health Care.

Is it possible that America's failure is due to bad government? Bad on behalf of both political parties that uphold the fkd up American way?

Only government can get it right.
But first the government has to be made right.
Ask Bernie Sanders about that.

 

[TNHarley]

Government fucked up our healthcare, and all these federal supremacists are cheering our corrupt govt retaining more power than it is supposed to have. To further fuck up our lives.
You people are so goddamn stupid.

Government in the world's leading countries got it right on Health Care.

Is it possible that America's failure is due to bad government? Bad on behalf of both political parties that uphold the fkd up American way?

Only government can get it right.
But first the government has to be made right.
Ask Bernie Sanders about that.

Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either

 

[TNHarley]

The real damage to the big insurance companies will come when the American people of all political stripes see that their neighbour with the ACA is benefiting so much by it.

LOL - are you kidding? They wrote ACA. Google Liz Fowler.

Correct.
ACA was written in order to benefit private insurance companies, by mandating private health insurance.
Those who think ACA has a public option, are totally wrong.
The problems come from 3rd party payers and prepaying consumers, so ACA fixed almost nothing.

You're lost in your lack of understanding of how a successful HC system works.

But you Americans already know all the answers so what's to do but to watch the sideshow as the wealthy ruling class stick it up you asses for the foreseeable future.

This ACA you have been discussing was written by the wealthy class, for the wealthy class.
But you dont care about facts. Authoritarians never do. If you idiots cared about facts, you wouldnt suck off big govt dick.

 

[Donald H]

HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.

Health insurance hadn't been invented yet, like so many other things that weren't around when it was written, you Constitutional scholar you.

Indeed. So, going by what you just pointed out, a Constitutional Amendment is required.

America's HC system is the example of complete failure to the rest of the modern world mr. Harley.
What more needs to be said?

 

[dblack]

So Medicare is not socialist communism that would end America like your conservative heroes argued before??

Nope. It's good old-fashioned corporatism.

Do you understand when you have to rely on goofy ass hyperbole to argue against policy -- chances are, your own policies suck......

What in my post did you consider "goofy ass hyperbole"?

The hyperbole refers to anyone who either said or agreed with critiques against Medicare as being a communist takeover of America that would end our way of life......

Ahh. Yes, that does get ridiculous.

Yes Medicare is structured within the framework of faux capitalism and corporatism...but so is America itself....

but I won't go deeper into it because I don't want any of the Trumpers to get triggered about the true history of this country....

As long as it's clear that Medicare doesn't take insurance company profits out of the equation. It ensures them.

But Medicare itself isn't a for-profit enterprise...which is why their overhead can be so low......

What makes you think "for-profit" entails more overhead?

 

[TNHarley]

HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.

Health insurance hadn't been invented yet, like so many other things that weren't around when it was written, you Constitutional scholar you.

Indeed. So, going by what you just pointed out, a Constitutional Amendment is required.

America's HC system is the example of complete failure to the rest of the modern world mr. Harley.
What more needs to be said?

Because of the federal govt. Not from the lack thereof. Thats what you dipshits dont understand. Or ignore.

 

[dblack]

Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.

Why?

 

[meaner gene]

Standing is more than that. It requires the person who brings the case to (be or represent the people who) suffer direct harm from the controversy.

The USSC said that a taxpayer doesn't have standing to object to government waste.

I'll take the opinion of a Harvard educated lawyer with decades of experience over yours....

"Most judges and justices use standing only to kick out truly meritless lawsuits and clear their dockets of the riffraff. By the time a case makes it all the way to the Supreme Court, there’s usually some thin veneer of legal harm that allows the justices to grant standing and then rule on the heart of the matter."

Look up the record on the "line item veto"
Six senators took it to court, as a violation of the constitution, and it was tossed out because of lack of standing. And this was a case coming from the people who wrote the law.

Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia

But it took na actual controversy, and not just principle, to make it judgeable.

Clinton v. City of New York - Wikipedia

 

[Donald H]

Government fucked up our healthcare, and all these federal supremacists are cheering our corrupt govt retaining more power than it is supposed to have. To further fuck up our lives.
You people are so goddamn stupid.

Government in the world's leading countries got it right on Health Care.

Is it possible that America's failure is due to bad government? Bad on behalf of both political parties that uphold the fkd up American way?

Only government can get it right.
But first the government has to be made right.
Ask Bernie Sanders about that.

Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either

You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.
Lose all your wrong ideas on HC and start from scratch.
When you're ready to learn by acting like rational adults, the rest of the world has some answers.

 

[TNHarley]

Government fucked up our healthcare, and all these federal supremacists are cheering our corrupt govt retaining more power than it is supposed to have. To further fuck up our lives.
You people are so goddamn stupid.

Government in the world's leading countries got it right on Health Care.

Is it possible that America's failure is due to bad government? Bad on behalf of both political parties that uphold the fkd up American way?

Only government can get it right.
But first the government has to be made right.
Ask Bernie Sanders about that.

Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either

You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.
Lose all your wrong ideas on HC and start from scratch.
When you're ready to learn by acting like rational adults, the rest of the world has some answers.

I know its a failure. How many times must i say it? Does Canada not teach reading and comprehension?

 

[kaz]

You fundamentally don't understand insurance. Insurance is ex ante, not ex post. You're trying to create a welfare program out of it where known costs are spread out driving up the cost of other insured who then don't want to buy it because it's too expensive. That is a welfare program and only works when government uses force

You fundamentally don't understand insurance. Insurance is ex ante, not ex post. You're trying to create a welfare program out of it where known costs are spread out driving up the cost of other insured who then don't want to buy it because it's too expensive. That is a welfare program and only works when government uses force

I’ve done no such thing. I said nothing of welfare or suggested it be free or without profit. It’s obvious to anyone reading this that it is you who struggles.

You clearly did, liar. You said insurance is where healthy people pay for unhealthy people. Actually insurance is about risk pooling. Insurance is based on ex ante risks, not ex post money redistribution. That is socialism, not insurance

You clearly did, liar. You said insurance is where healthy people pay for unhealthy people. Actually insurance is about risk pooling. Insurance is based on ex ante risks, not ex post money redistribution. That is socialism, not insurance

Still confused I see.
I said nothing about welfare, dope.

Yes. Risk pooling. Now explain why they are arranged as such.

God you're stupid. You don't even understand the discussion.

When you say you are using medicine to redistribute wealth (healthy to unhealthy), that is clearly welfare. Clearly meaning to someone who's not an idiot. You know, you ...

God you're stupid. You don't even understand the discussion.

When you say you are using medicine to redistribute wealth (healthy to unhealthy), that is clearly welfare. Clearly meaning to someone who's not an idiot. You know, you ...

I said nothing of redistributing wealth, dope. It’s your fundamental inability to understand that leads you to such retarded conclusions.

Winston Churchill: I can explain it to you. I cannot comprehend it for you