1. Post #1
    elitehakor v2's Avatar
    June 2010
    3,836 Posts
    http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28...law/?hpt=hp_t1



    [Updated at 10:16 a.m. ET] Kate Bolduan reports that the Chief Justice John Roberts issued a long opinion in which he said the controversial individual mandate may be upheld and is within Congress’ power under the taxing clause rather than the commerce clause.
    https://twitter.com/CNNSitRoom/statu...47902303608832 - CNN twitter update
    Supreme Court backs all parts of Obama’s signature health care law, including individual mandate that requires all to have health insurance

    SCOTUS Q&A
    [Updated at 10:28 a.m. ET] In its 5-4 decision to uphold the U.S. health care law, the Supreme Court answered several key questions:

    Question: Can the court decide the constitutionality of health care now, or does it have to wait a few years?

    To answer, the court had to decide whether a penalty the law imposes on people who do not have health insurance amounts to a tax.

    A previously obscure law mandated that the legality of a tax cannot be challenged until it is imposed, and the health care law doesn't call for penalties until 2014.

    The court's answer: The court upheld the entire law.

    Question: Is the requirement that people have health insurance - the so-called individual mandate - constitutional?

    The court's answer: Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the commerce clause did not apply, but the mandate stands under the taxing clause.

    Question: If the individual mandate is unconstitutional, can the rest of the law stand, or is the whole thing unconstitutional?

    The court's answer: The mandate is constitutional, rendering moot further questions on the rest of the law.

    Question: Can the federal government force states to expand their share of Medicaid costs and administration?

    The court's answer: Yes, but the justices ruled that the federal government cannot remove existing Medicaid funding if the states choose not to participate in the new program.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Winner x 117Dumb x 13Funny x 2Disagree x 1Optimistic x 1 (list)

  2. Post #2
    -nesto-'s Avatar
    September 2007
    3,864 Posts
    The key part survived

  3. Post #3
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    -snip- Found the real answer.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 4 (list)

  4. Post #4
    elitehakor v2's Avatar
    June 2010
    3,836 Posts
    UPDATE

    [Updated at 10:16 a.m. ET] Kate Bolduan reports that the Chief Justice John Roberts issued a long opinion in which he said the controversial individual mandate may be upheld and is within Congress’ power under the taxing clause rather than the commerce clause.

  5. Post #5
    Gold Member
    BusterBluth's Avatar
    November 2008
    4,206 Posts
    The entire law was upheld,it just cant be implemented under the commerce clause.

    Edited:

    I have to ask, if that is a violation of the constitution, then why do we have to have car insurance?
    Big difference
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 11Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  6. Post #6
    Chicken_Chaser's Avatar
    June 2010
    4,367 Posts
    Please be upheld please be upheld

    Healthcare is a necessity not a commodity. Fuck if someone doesn't want it just pay the fine don't be so fucking self centered.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 30Disagree Disagree x 5Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  7. Post #7
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    The entire law was upheld,it just cant be implemented under the commerce clause.

    Edited:



    Big difference
    I understand there is a big difference between car and health insurance. I'm just asking at the principle level.

  8. Post #8
    Gold Member
    POLOPOZOZO's Avatar
    May 2006
    14,917 Posts
    I have to ask, if that is a violation of the constitution, then why do we have to have car insurance?
    You don't have to own a car, but then again you don't have to go to a doctor, "get fucked" is always an option. Really this would just make a lot more sense if there was a public option, but insurance companies would dread that because then they'd actually have to offer competetive premiums and employers wouldn't be able to just attach insurance to employment.

    Still, fuck, if they uphold it Romney's constituency will only be more motivated.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 7 (list)

  9. Post #9
    Gold Member
    BusterBluth's Avatar
    November 2008
    4,206 Posts
    I understand there is a big difference between car and health insurance. I'm just asking at the principle level.
    You don't have to have a car.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 5Late Late x 1 (list)

  10. Post #10
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    You don't have to have a car.
    I'm sorry, but that argument in itself is extremely poor. Tell a someone living in a rural town that has to travel 50+ miles to work that he does not need a car. Not everyone lives in a metro where a car is something you can simply go without. A car is not simply an option to many Americans. Over 89% of American's own vehicles.

    I actually did some research and got a real answer.

    "Driving is a priviledge not a right. In order to use the priviledge you must make provisions for the safety of others. Under the 10th amendment a state can madate auto insurance. Insurance is sold to meet each state's individual requirements. It is not transferable."
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 21Informative Informative x 2 (list)

  11. Post #11
    Gold Member
    BusterBluth's Avatar
    November 2008
    4,206 Posts
    I'm sorry, but that argument in itself is extremely poor. Tell a someone living in a rural town that has to travel 50+ miles to work that he does not need a car. Not everyone lives in a metro where a car is something you can simply go without.

    I actually did some research and got a real answer.

    "Driving is a priviledge not a right. In order to use the priviledge you must make provisions for the safety of others. Under the 10th amendment a state can madate auto insurance. Insurance is sold to meet each state's individual requirements. It is not transferable."
    Its not a poor argument, its the most basic argument. You are not required to purchase car insurance just for existing, you must first purchase a car.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  12. Post #12
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,840 Posts
    Its not a poor argument, its the most basic argument. You are not required to purchase car insurance just for existing, you must first purchase a car.
    Correct - I never had to have car insurance until I got my license and started driving.

    You aren't required to have car insurance unless you have a car or some other motor vehicle you use to commute. So you don't need insurance. You need a car.

  13. Post #13
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    Its not a poor argument, its the most basic argument. You are not required to purchase car insurance just for existing, you must first purchase a car.
    It is a poor argument. It assumes that a vehicle is simply a commodity to all American's, which simply isn't the case. To many American's, a vehicle is as necessary to their family's well being as healthcare.

    I'm not arguing against the requirement of purchasing auto insurance, I am just trying to play devils advocate.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  14. Post #14

    September 2008
    124 Posts
    I can only imagine the EPIC fallout out of this ruling.

    that just made my day after Gmod went down last night.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 12 (list)

  15. Post #15
    Gold Member
    smurfy's Avatar
    October 2007
    21,585 Posts
    I really expected them to strike down at least part of the law. This is fucking great

    Edited:

    I had completely forgotten that the ruling was today, came home and saw this, came
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 4 (list)

  16. Post #16
    Gold Member
    POLOPOZOZO's Avatar
    May 2006
    14,917 Posts
    You also don't have to go to a doctor or hospital, you can just die.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 4 (list)

  17. Post #17
    Chicken_Chaser's Avatar
    June 2010
    4,367 Posts
    I really expected them to strike down at least part of the law. This is fucking great

    Edited:

    I had completely forgotten that the ruling was today, came home and saw this, came
    I'm so stoked right now.

    Regarding the car thing: it's a necessity here. No public transit.

  18. Post #18
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,840 Posts
    It is a poor argument. It assumes that a vehicle is simply a commodity to all American's, which simply isn't the case. To many American's, a vehicle is as necessary to their family's well being as healthcare.
    It is a commodity. Food is also a commodity and you need that to survive. What's necessary is usually a commodity but not vice versa
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Informative Informative x 2Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  19. Post #19
    Collin665's Avatar
    January 2008
    2,339 Posts
    As a minor who doesn't have to deal with his own health insurance yet, can someone explain to me how obamacare actually functions? Or just provide a link to a page explaining it.

    Also someone on my facebook page is comparing one's diet to health insurance.
    " If the federal government told you that you need to have a certain diet, would you be so complacent? There is precedent for it now. It could be tacked on as an earmark and rushed through."

    What do?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  20. Post #20
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    It is a commodity. Food is also a commodity and you need that to survive. What's necessary is usually a commodity but not vice versa
    Fair enough. I understand.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  21. Post #21
    -nesto-'s Avatar
    September 2007
    3,864 Posts
    Fuck if someone doesn't want it just pay the fine don't be so fucking self centered.
    That's not being self centered. I wouldn't have a problem paying a tax so that less fortunate people could get decent healthcare. One of the big issues was having to pay for people that are detrimental to their own health; smokers, fat fucks, drug addicts etc etc
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 5 (list)

  22. Post #22
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    Also, thanks for the healthcare guys. Obamacare will effect me and my family greatly. :)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Friendly Friendly x 14 (list)

  23. Post #23
    Gold Member
    smurfy's Avatar
    October 2007
    21,585 Posts
    Obama is going to win re-election then eh. This was pretty much the only thing that could have turned the tide against him
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Optimistic Optimistic x 1 (list)

  24. Post #24
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,840 Posts
    Fair enough. I understand.
    And here I was gearing up for a 3-page long debate with someone on the internet
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 20 (list)

  25. Post #25

    June 2012
    461 Posts
    calling it now...

    republicans will stress the bad, and the ways they would change the law to make it work (which democrats wont allow)

    democrats will stress the good, and the ways they would change the law to make it better (which republicans wont allow)

    insurance rates start going up (even faster then before)
    subsides towards the poor getting insurance will become a states issue (unfunded mandate)

    most annoying part? health care reform is desperately needed, and there are many other effective ways to go about it. i personally dont think forcing out private insurance and going with gov insurance is the way to go/ but i also dont think allowing insurance companies to hold their monopoly works well either.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 3Agree Agree x 1Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  26. Post #26
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    And here I was gearing up for a 3-page long debate with someone on the internet
    If someone makes a good point that I can't argue with, I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing. You were right.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Winner Winner x 5Friendly Friendly x 4Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  27. Post #27
    Chicken_Chaser's Avatar
    June 2010
    4,367 Posts
    That's not being self centered. I wouldn't have a problem paying a tax so that less fortunate people could get decent healthcare. One of the big issues was having to pay for people that are detrimental to their own health; smokers, fat fucks, drug addicts etc etc
    I don't mind. My dad smokes cigars. He's also a very highly productive person of our society. Good ethics etc. I do not think he deserves to be left out.

  28. Post #28
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,840 Posts
    If someone makes a good point that I can't argue with, I'm not going to argue for the sake of arguing. You were right.
    I thought you were gonna be like most first-page question askers and fight EVERY POINT MADE tooth and nail

    Edited:

    I don't mind. My dad smokes cigars. He's also a very highly productive person of our society. Good ethics etc. I do not think he deserves to be left out.
    But some people, myself included, don't want to pay for what is effectively someone else's vice

  29. Post #29
    Chicken_Chaser's Avatar
    June 2010
    4,367 Posts
    I thought you were gonna be like most first-page question askers and fight EVERY POINT MADE tooth and nail

    Edited:



    But some people, myself included, don't want to pay for what is effectively someone else's vice
    Eh, I'm not going to argue. It's an ideological difference. Good day to you.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Friendly Friendly x 1 (list)

  30. Post #30
    Tuba Player Extraordinaire
    Funcoot's Avatar
    January 2006
    3,592 Posts
    I thought you were gonna be like most first-page question askers and fight EVERY POINT MADE tooth and nail
    And it was settled in only a few posts.

  31. Post #31
    Dennab
    April 2011
    503 Posts
    Fucking awesome.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 Thailand Show Events Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  32. Post #32
    elitehakor v2's Avatar
    June 2010
    3,836 Posts
    And it was settled in only a few posts.
    Obamacare really is changing the world
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Funny Funny x 19 (list)

  33. Post #33
    kill yourself
    Protocol7's Avatar
    June 2006
    25,840 Posts
    Eh, I'm not going to argue. It's an ideological difference. Good day to you.
    Well, it's not that I don't want to help people that have health issues, such as a smoker with lung cancer. But they say prevention is the best medicine. It's kind of a gray area for me, I don't really want to restrict other people like that but at the same time if we have to pay more because people are using Obamacare to pay for medical visits to take care of their smoking-caused lung cancer...

  34. Post #34

    June 2012
    461 Posts



    But some people, myself included, don't want to pay for what is effectively someone else's vice
    Vice? or pre-existing condition?
    Its not as stupid as it sounds, drug abuse is pretty much labeled as a mental health issue.

    So which way is this going to go? Person A, makes every bad health decision he can and is? Penalized? (charged more for insurance or taxed for the privilege of making those decisions)

    Id be lying if i said i read more then excerpts of the bill, what i have read makes little sense. Will be interested to see what changes are proposed to the existing bill, or if no changes- how they plan on actually implementing it.

  35. Post #35
    Collin665's Avatar
    January 2008
    2,339 Posts
    What happens if someone incurs medical fees but doesn't have insurance and can't pay them? Does this put strain on the taxpayer in anyway? Just wondering, as some people make it sound like it does.

  36. Post #36
    Chicken_Chaser's Avatar
    June 2010
    4,367 Posts
    Well, it's not that I don't want to help people that have health issues, such as a smoker with lung cancer. But they say prevention is the best medicine. It's kind of a gray area for me, I don't really want to restrict other people like that but at the same time if we have to pay more because people are using Obamacare to pay for medical visits to take care of their smoking-caused lung cancer...
    I think more lives saved = best outcome. I'm willing to pay the price. Life is too chaotic and stressful for people not to have their vices.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 1 (list)

  37. Post #37
    Gold Member
    BusterBluth's Avatar
    November 2008
    4,206 Posts
    What happens if someone incurs medical fees but doesn't have insurance and can't pay them? Does this put strain on the taxpayer in anyway? Just wondering, as some people make it sound like it does.
    It puts strain on the hospital, which in tern does put stress on the tax payer. In most hospitals emergency services hemorrhage money because of people coming in who are not insured.

  38. Post #38
    Gold Member
    [Seed Eater]'s Avatar
    July 2011
    5,669 Posts
    There's positives and negatives here.

    The healthcare mandate itself has some really stupid things in it, like the mandate part, where the government forces you to pay tax if you don't buy private insurance. That's forcing you to pay or to buy shitty private healthcare. Regulating that private healthcare is not a good enough excuse to force people to buy it. I've always thought that taxing in order to force someone to pay something is ridiculous and violates multiple fundamental rights and liberties. I totally disagree with this method. Government penalizing people for not buying a private product, that's silly.

    I'm glad we've gotten some reform, but t's still shit reform and the method by which people are expected to get that reform is silly and harmful. This was probably the worst method of reforming healthcare that had any benefit could possibly be. "We're going to make you buy healthcare, if you don't we're going to fine you. Sure, the healthcare is a tiny little bit better now, but it's still total shit and you're still paying a for-profit private provider."
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 12Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  39. Post #39

    June 2012
    461 Posts
    What happens if someone incurs medical fees but doesn't have insurance and can't pay them? Does this put strain on the taxpayer in anyway? Just wondering, as some people make it sound like it does.
    Depends. Mostly on where the fees were incurred.
    For the sake of simplicity lets separate hospitals into for profit, and not for profit- the latter being county hospitals and such that get decent amounts of funding from the gov..

    The gov itself, technically doesnt "pay" anyones unpaid bills. What they do is give (not for profit) hospitals money on the theory that the hospital will use it to treat ppl who cant pay. (the hospitals that do treat ppl that cant pay- do it mostly because they have to by law, and they take the gov funding AND send the poor person a bill anyway)

    You could make a point that the average person pays more because the ones w/o insurance cant pay their bills. Its a bit harder to say the gov now gives hospitals more money because ppl dont have insurance (or that the money in any way "helps" those particular ppl)
    tl/dr, if you incur a medical bill that you cant pay, the gov doesnt "pay" it- not directly anyway. The bill is yours (and atm cant be handled by bankruptcy)
    But the rest of the nation, at least indirectly, pays more because of that unpaid bill.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  40. Post #40
    Gold Member
    nemmises5's Avatar
    May 2010
    1,925 Posts
    either I'm being brainwashed by the people I'm surrounded by or something, because I've been taught obamacare was really bad. then again I live with people who still think Obama is from Kenya and is the Antichrist.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Reply Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 3Funny Funny x 1 (list)