By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - What happens if ObamaCare is overturned?

What a nice day. I'm very pleased to see that our people can now be helped. It is about time that something like this happened. Thank you Mr. Obama. Now it's time to add better pieces to it, make it the law people wanted it to be from the begining. Should be eassier to fix it than to get it passed and the SC to uphold it.



Ask stefl1504 for a sig, even if you don't need one.

Around the Network
badgenome said:
Kasz216 said:

Oh yeah, Obama was all worried about "Conservative Judicial Activism."

Wonder if he'll acknowledge the activism in the fact that the court ruled a way that both sides rejecetd. (well I don't... but it's ironic.)

It was a clear case of the court not wanting to stick with the status quo healthcare and finding any legal loophole they could to get it to pass because it was obviously unconsitutuitonal from the commerce clause to anyone who looked at it objectivly.

Roberts, maybe. Ginsburg's opinion (joined by Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan) made it clear that they still believe that the Commerce Clause has no practical limits, at least so long as they like the outcome.


Note the "Anyone who looked at it objectivly" line.  If this were about anything not having to do with peoples emotions this would of been an easy 7-2 verdict.



Kasz216 said:

Note the "Anyone who looked at it objectivly" line.  If this were about anything not having to do with peoples emotions this would of been an easy 7-2 verdict.

Haha, good point.



badgenome said:
Kasz216 said:

Note the "Anyone who looked at it objectivly" line.  If this were about anything not having to do with peoples emotions this would of been an easy 7-2 verdict.

Haha, good point.


Although I will say, had the penalty actually been called a tax in the legislation... I think that the call they made would of been the correct one.

Hence my indifference.



Kasz216 said:

Although I will say, had the penalty actually been called a tax in the legislation... I think that the call they made would of been the correct one.

Hence my indifference.

I just don't get why it isn't a tax regarding the Anti-Injunction Act, and then it suddenly becomes one. According to Roberts, at least. I think he just wanted to write that snazzy line about how it isn't the Supreme Court's place to protect people from the consequences of their political choices, and figured it would be a whole lot better if it were in a decision upholding Obamacare instead of striking it down.



Around the Network
badgenome said:
Kasz216 said:

Although I will say, had the penalty actually been called a tax in the legislation... I think that the call they made would of been the correct one.

Hence my indifference.

I just don't get why it isn't a tax regarding the Anti-Injunction Act, and then it suddenly becomes one. According to Roberts, at least. I think he just wanted to write that snazzy line about how it isn't the Supreme Court's place to protect people from the consequences of their political choices, and figured it would be a whole lot better if it were in a decision upholding Obamacare instead of striking it down.

I think it has more to do with practical reasoning so people weren't freaking out over whether or not it was going to be consitutional for another 3 years while trying to implement everything... and argueably getting a ruling on the books about the commerce on the books in the next four years.


I think the ruling there was "You can't play word games with the US consitution, but you can with US law."



Kasz216 said:

I think it has more to do with practical reasoning so people weren't freaking out over whether or not it was going to be consitutional for another 3 years while trying to implement everything... and argueably getting a ruling on the books about the commerce on the books in the next four years.


I think the ruling there was "You can't play word games with the US consitution, but you can with US law."

Or he's Karl Rove in a black dress, and he doesn't want Obama to just have to defend his economic record going into November but this shitty law as well.



badgenome said:
Kasz216 said:

I think it has more to do with practical reasoning so people weren't freaking out over whether or not it was going to be consitutional for another 3 years while trying to implement everything... and argueably getting a ruling on the books about the commerce on the books in the next four years.


I think the ruling there was "You can't play word games with the US consitution, but you can with US law."

Or he's Karl Rove in a black dress, and he doesn't want Obama to just have to defend his economic record going into November but this shitty law as well.

not only that but he has to defend a tax incraese on all americans now as well.



So...why are people so against this? From where I stand (i.e as a guy who gets sick at the drop of a hat and often requires hospital visits and is too broke to afford to pay for anything) This can only be a good thing.

Only complaints I've heard is 'it's "unamerican, unpatriotic, socialist"' not entirely sure what any of that means.



PS One/2/p/3slim/Vita owner. I survived the Apocalyps3/Collaps3 and all I got was this lousy signature.


Xbox One: What are you doing Dave?

Ajescent said:
So...why are people so against this? From where I stand (i.e as a guy who gets sick at the drop of a hat and often requires hospital visits and is too broke to afford to pay for anything) This can only be a good thing.

Only complaints I've heard is 'it's "unamerican, unpatriotic, socialist"' not entirely sure what any of that means.

How about the fact that whether or not you believe health care is a "right", this is an incredibly dishonest and, frankly, fucking stupid way of going about it. The whole thing has been sold as putting evil, abusive insurance companies in their place when in reality it is just forcing people to do business with these same evil, abusive insurance companies. It's very telling that the whole time the Democrats were demonizing them and talking about how hard the insurance companies were working to defeat the bill... they actually weren't. That's because they were helping to write the bill. It's crony capitalism at its worst.