Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[Tulane Skins Fan]

On my way to Scalia' date=' I found this. This basically sums up the Medicaid aspect:

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 10:37 AM ----------

I don't see Scalia joining anything. I haven't gotten far enough. Does Ginsburg write a separate concurrence/dissent? This seems to have been written by Roberts and Ginsburg, who are working out their issues.

Here is what I think happened. I don't think this is the precedent on the Commerce Clause section. I think the Court of Appeals decision is. Does that make sense?

I have to admit, I'm kind of lost on the vote counting here.

It is really confusing.

It seems to me that Scalia is such an arrogant **** that he missed out on the chance to limit the interstate commerce clause in a meaningful way that would serve as precedent over the entire federal court system. By doing what he (and the other conservatives) did, it seems the interstate commerce clause opinion is really, really narrow. Like, it only applies to the ACA and not to anything else.

Ginsburg wrote her own opinion where she and the other three libs said it was constitutional under the commerce clause.

[ixcuincle]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

---------- Post added June-28th-2012 at 11:44 AM ----------

Solid news organization? This is one of the biggest decisions in American history and they got it wrong.

So did Fox News.

[The Evil Genius]

I occasionally love the snark of Meghain McCain.

Meghan McCain ‏@McCainBlogette

Who is having a worse day Republicans, Ann Curry or CNN?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

It is really confusing.

It seems to me that Scalia is such an arrogant **** that he missed out on the chance to limit the interstate commerce clause in a meaningful way that would serve as precedent over the entire federal court system. By doing what he (and the other conservatives) did, it seems the interstate commerce clause opinion is really, really narrow. Like, it only applies to the ACA and not to anything else.

That's what I noted upstream. I think Scalia could have overturned Wickard here if he so desired. Or at least shot in the leg. Instead, Roberts actually protects it.

It looks like Scalia and Thomas realized they were going to lose and just decided to take shots at everyone.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Lombardi's_kid_brother

[Duckus]

Twitter is amazing right now. People are awesome.

Barack Obama looking at CNN on his iPad.

[Baylor Alum]

I have not read the current opinions... I was commenting on Prosperity's statement "Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, Scalia agree w/ Roberts that the commerce clause can't compel people into commerce. " Noting that Kennedy and Scalia in 2005 GONZALES V. RAICH did apply the commerse clause on somebody who was in fact not involved in commerse but was growing medical MJ for personal use. This was discussed in the oral arguments.

If you have read the current decision could you explain the distinction you are making please.

In Gonzalez and Wikard, there was acitvity that affected interstate commerce (growing wheat and MJ) thus providing the basis for regulation under the Commerce Clause. In this case, Congress is trying to regulate inactivity - not buying insurance. Gonzalez and Wickard would be on point if Congress was attempting to use regulations to force the growing of wheat and MJ by people who did not want to do so.

[MattFancy]

So did Fox News.

Fox isn't even news anymore at this point

[Tulane Skins Fan]

That's what I noted upstream. I think Scalia could have overturned Wickard here if he so desired. Or at least shot in the leg. Instead' date=' Roberts actually protects it.

It looks like Scalia and Thomas realized they were going to lose and just decided to take shots at everyone.[/quote']

Its kinda fitting. If you think about this, Scalia is the hard right who just cut off his nose to spite his face, like a lot of people will say the tea party has done in the last 3.5 years. Or the GOP in general has done in the last 3.5 years. If the GOP came to the table with some ideas and an open mind, they probably could have gotten a lot of stuff they wanted. But no, its "all or nothing." And that's exactly what Scalia did here. The cherry on top.

[PCS]

Sigh. This is a member rant,not a mod rant. Ahem. Okay. I get it. CNN ****ed up. That was sometime ago. I'm also not surprised about Fox,(anyone who is needs to climb out of the hole). In other words,who gives a **** now? Let's move on to the decision itself. Yeeeeeesh.

*

I looked at the decision and my hats off to anyone who can that stuff. I haven't read anything that dry since Gore Vidal's Burr. :rubeyes:

[Duckus]

Annnnnnnd this might be the best thing you read all day.

Rand Paul on the decision. Please see the underlined portion.

Sen. Rand Paul doesn’t think the Supreme Court gets the last word on what’s constitutional.

The Kentucky Republican belittled the high court’s health care decision as the flawed opinion of just a “couple people.”

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional,” the freshman lawmaker said in a statement. “While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right.”

“Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system,” added Paul, who frequently rails about government overreach on the Senate floor. “This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/rand-paul-obamacare-is-still-unconstitutional-127574.html

[JimboDaMan]

And we still hate condescending jackasses. Could you show me my unpaid hospital bills please? Could you explain to me what my employers' plan covers for what I pay? Or do you just want to continue your false presumptions?

But you are counting on a certain level of catastrophic care regardless of your lack of a paid insurance policy or ability to pay out of pocket. That in itself is a form of insurance which costs you nothing. There's no need for this to get nasty. From your posts it seems like 1) you can't afford insurance but 2) you view (essentially) government-provided insurance as being forced to rely on the government but 3) you are relying on a certain amount of free care should it become necessary. Am I wrong? I just don't see how 3 is so dramatically different than 2.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Annnnnnnd this might be the best thing you read all day.

Rand Paul on the decision. Please see the underlined portion.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/rand-paul-obamacare-is-still-unconstitutional-127574.html

Yes, there is mass insanity going on right now. People are going to start praying to Charles Manson and drinking kool-aid any second.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Tulane Skins Fan

[thebluefood]

Upon first hearing about the decision, I was very disappointed. I didn't like Obamacare from the start, not because I think the poor should go without health care or because I think health care in America is doing fine. I think anyone who's paying attention can see that health care is broken in American and swift reform is needed. I even think some of the aspects of Obama are a step in the right direction, like prohibiting insurers from denying clients insurance because of their medical history. I really wanted to get on board with Obamacare, because I already believe universal health care on the state level is a good idea.

The individual mandate, though, was the thing that soured me on Obamacare.

I already hate the fact that drivers in North Carolina have to get car insurance before they can get behind the wheel. It's the primary reason why I don't have a car right now; but at least I have the option of not purchasing a car and riding the bus without having to worry about a penalty or a tax. This doesn't seem to be the case with the Affordable Health Care Act.

But, maybe Justice Robert's opinion will help me see the wisdom behind this. There has to be a reason why a right-leaning judge wrote a majority opinion of a left-leaning verdict.

[ixcuincle]

Twitter is amazing right now. People are awesome.

Barack Obama looking at CNN on his iPad.

I'm a CNN Fan but this is hilarious.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I looked at the decision and my hats off to anyone who can that stuff. I haven't read anything that dry since Gore Vidal's Burr. :rubeyes:

I love it. God help me I love it so.

[MattFancy]

Annnnnnnd this might be the best thing you read all day.

Rand Paul on the decision. Please see the underlined portion.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/rand-paul-obamacare-is-still-unconstitutional-127574.html

Nah those SC justices are useless, what do they know!

Edited June 28, 2012 by MattFancy

[thebluefood]

Annnnnnnd this might be the best thing you read all day.

Rand Paul on the decision. Please see the underlined portion.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/rand-paul-obamacare-is-still-unconstitutional-127574.html

While I think Senator Paul is overreacting, I do agree that just because the SCOTUS says something is constitutional doesn't make it so and should be challenged if that is the case.

Plessy v. Ferguson is an example of such a case.

I don't think this is the same situation, though. Once again, I need to read Justice Robert's opinion on this.

[ixcuincle]

http://twitter.com/CountBettman/statuses/218373142681370624

Just spoke to Tim Thomas.He is outraged with Supreme Courts decision on health Care..plans on leaving the country and playing in Estonia now

[HooHog]

I already hate the fact that drivers in North Carolina have to get car insurance before they can get behind the wheel. It's the primary reason why I don't have a car right now

Are you kidding? I can't think of a single negative thing that comes from requiring drivers to insure their vehicles.

[mikered30]

i am confused, is this a tax or not?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

While I think Senator Paul is overreacting, I do agree that just because the SCOTUS says something is constitutional doesn't make it so and should be challenged if that is the case.

Plessy v. Ferguson is an example of such a case.

I don't think this is the same situation, though. Once again, I need to read Justice Robert's opinion on this.

Well, Marbury v. Madison answered this question a long time ago. The SCOTUS can make mistakes, but by definition they rule as to whether something is constitutional or not.

One more thing, this law could be repealed very easily, and Roberts was pretty clear that he doesn't like the law but its not his job to write health care reform. I think if the GOP wants to repeal this law, they can, but they have to come up with some sort of alternative. What's messed up is that this is the most "conservative" health care reform law that anyone could come up with. The alternatives to this are single payer and public option. What else is there?

So, maybe the GOP learned a lesson today in not relying on a decision 3 years down the road when you have a chance to negotiate terms you may like? Nah.... no one learns anything.

[JimboDaMan]

The individual mandate, though, was the thing that soured me on Obamacare.

I already hate the fact that drivers in North Carolina have to get car insurance before they can get behind the wheel. It's the primary reason why I don't have a car right now; but at least I have the option of not purchasing a car and riding the bus without having to worry about a penalty or a tax. This doesn't seem to be the case with the Affordable Health Care Act.

This is the part I don't understand. Would you, in all honesty, be willing to sign a binding pledge rejecting all forms of medical care without upfront cash payment? In a serious car accident, load the insured onto the ambulance and leave the willfully uninsured on the side of the road for wolves to feast on? If our society would support such a choice I could agree with your position. But that's not going to happen and we all know it.

[No Excuses]

I already hate the fact that drivers in North Carolina have to get car insurance before they can get behind the wheel. It's the primary reason why I don't have a car right now; but at least I have the option of not purchasing a car and riding the bus without having to worry about a penalty or a tax.

Take it from someone who was T-boned by a guy without car insurance that it's a huge pain in the ass to deal with a situation like that.

You can't live without health insurance. Sooner or later, you'll have a need for it. It's not really comparable to drivers insurance.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

i am confused, is this a tax or not?

According to 5 justices, yes. Its a tax.

[Teller]

I already hate the fact that drivers in North Carolina have to get car insurance before they can get behind the wheel.

That's why they had to include the fine/tax/fine/tax/fine/tax in Obamacare. Otherwise, with pre-existing conditions covered, you could just wait till you got sick to get coverage. And extrapolating that, you could call from the scene of your accident in NC and get auto insurance.