Question for those who know judicial protocol.

 

A guy summarized it this way: President Obama wrote a bad term paper and instead of grading the term paper on its content the teacher suggested ways(ie tax vs Commerce Clause) to make it better.

 

Is this unprecedented?

 

Didn't Congress write it?

 

Then they debated it. Took in bi-partisan input - oops, never mind on that one. Refined it - oops, could not do that after Kennedy past away. And the cast their votes in the full light of day - oops, the votes were on weekends and nights.

I'm very interested to hear the legal-beagles amoung our congregation translate this. Please keep posting!

Do you think a majority of Americans would be in favor of a single payer system (and I assume that the single payer would be the federal govt, correct?)? If the single payer would be the federal govt, how would the federal govt afford being the payer?

 

 

I'm not sure if the majority would or not. But, the question I find most perplexing is, why is the single-payer system the Republican solution? Honest question. It seems to go against the Republican philosophy, yet here I read the part of the AHCA that was countributed by them could be what propels us to this solution.

I have more freedom now, I will be more free to do with my money as I please since folks that doon't want insurance won't be running to the ER and driving up the cost of health care for those of us who do have insurance.

 

So you don't think your premiums will go up?

...and lottery tickets.

There was a great deal of talk before the decision that if the AHCA was struck down that it would be a blow for Obama come November. Now that it has been upheld I'm hearing that it will be a blow for Obama. Hot air? Valid double talk?

 

Hot air. I don't see how you can categorize this as anything but a big win for him. Sure there was some bones thrown to the GOP and you can bet we'll be hearing about the huge tax increase but he still had his signature plan vindicated.

^ - Maybe.

 

But ads are already ready for October....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIoygZ5L5Rg&feature=related

The Supreme Court said that states could opt out of the new Medicaid requirments. If they do then the rest of the law can't work. So tons of states will be opting out...

Ha, there will still be free insurance, Medicade and those who are too poor to pay will not have to. Uh since they can't afford to buy it and afford cigarettes at same time, so the poor will still go to ER for free and you get to still pay for it, just like always.

 

What about the people that afford it and choose not to get it....when ave a major illness or accident? Who pays for that? Why don't qualify for Medicaid.

What about the people that afford it and choose not to get it....when ave a major illness or accident? Who pays for that? Why don't qualify for Medicaid.

What's to stop them from doing that now? The Obama Healthcare Tax is not punitive enough to act as a deterrent.

What's to stop them from doing that now? The Obama Healthcare Tax is not punitive enough to act as a deterrent.

 

It is more of a deterrent than there was. I have no doubts that some will still take the penalty but I suspect that some will choose to obtain coverage as outlined by the Affordable Healthcare Act.

Question for those who know judicial protocol.

 

A guy summarized it this way: President Obama wrote a bad term paper and instead of grading the term paper on its content the teacher suggested ways(ie tax vs Commerce Clause) to make it better.

 

Is this unprecedented?

 

Not accurate and no.

 

The president and Congress may have publicly said "This isn't a tax." But the administration well knew that they HAD to keep this provision. When the solicitor general made arguments on this case, he (and therefore the administration) made a three-fold argument: 1) It's valid under the Commerce Clause; 2) if you disagree, it's still valid under the Necessary and Proper Clause; 3) if neither of those work, then it's STILL valid under taxing power of the Spending Clause.

 

The taxation argument for constitutionality was made and argued by the administration in the process of taking this thing before the Supreme Court.

 

And even though it doesn't apply in this case, the court coming up with arguments for constitutionality not promulgated by the actual participants has definitely happened before. And it happens in lower courts hourly.

No and no.

 

The president and Congress may have publicly said "This isn't a tax." But the administration well knew that they HAD to keep this provision. When the solicitor general made arguments on this case, he (and therefore the administration) made a three-fold argument: 1) It's valid under the Commerce Clause; 2) if you disagree, it's still valid under the Necessary and Proper Clause; 3) if neither of those work, then it's STILL valid under taxing power of the Spending Clause.

 

The taxation argument for constitutionality was made and argued by the administration.

 

Thanks, holmes.

So you don't think your premiums will go up?

 

Maybe, but if so I'm confident that it will be at a much slower rate than they were increasing prior to the ACA. I've mentioned on here before, that my premiums increased by 15,16 and 15 percents 3 years running. This was before Obama was even running for office. Since ACA they've went up 4% and 0% this year.

So after today our Constitution means absolutely NOTHING.