Pliny Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Well, it looks as though Obamacare may hit the dustbin. Portland Examiner Maybe the Supreme Court justices won't read the bill before they make judgment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Well, it looks as though Obamacare may hit the dustbin. Portland Examiner Maybe the Supreme Court justices won't read the bill before they make judgment? One of the parties will have to seek leave to appeal. The USSC will take this up but the current makeup of the court does not insure the result you imply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) Great. By the time we see this again, it will be fully covered national healthcare as it should be. Edited February 1, 2011 by Michael Hardner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Great. By the time we see this again, it will be fully covered national healthcare as it should be. As it should be? Because you say so? Anyways, as usual, Ann puts everything into fanastic perspective. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LkP5btPUlM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Anyways, as usual, Ann puts everything into fanastic perspective. There's no 's' in 'fanatic.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Great. By the time we see this again, it will be fully covered national healthcare as it should be. Oh, I seriously doubt that. That's why Obama bailed on the public option. The 2012 election cycle has already started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Great. By the time we see this again, it will be fully covered national healthcare as it should be. It sounds to me like this is about the mandate, which was something Obama actually campaigned against, and it definately the worst part of the legislation, and it was thrown in there simply as a bone to the medical industry. Its a terrible idea and it SHOULD be struck down. The question is what to replace it with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I tend to see this ruling as inevitable. The federal government should not have the power to compel citizens to purchase a commercial product (medical insurance) simply as a consequence of being alive (unlike car insurance which it is frequently compared to). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 I tend to see this ruling as inevitable. The federal government should not have the power to compel citizens to purchase a commercial product (medical insurance) simply as a consequence of being alive (unlike car insurance which it is frequently compared to). Right, so this will force another proposal for Medicare expansion and showdown with the insurance companies all over again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Right, so this will force another proposal for Medicare expansion and showdown with the insurance companies all over again. Works for me. Knowing how long it takes things to get through the government I'll probably be old and needing expanded coverage by the time a new version passes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 As it should be? Because you say so? Yes, sorry for having an opinion. Would you make rather make it illegal for me to express it ? Unlike the debate on "fluff news", I don't want to ban your opinion. I just want people to want something better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Oh, I seriously doubt that. That's why Obama bailed on the public option. The 2012 election cycle has already started. And a big win by both houses will leave Obama free to create a real legacy for the future. The wealthiest nation in the world can afford to provide healthcare for all its citizens, and I would be happy for them if they did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) And a big win by both houses will leave Obama free to create a real legacy for the future. The wealthiest nation in the world can afford to provide healthcare for all its citizens, and I would be happy for them if they did it. The US is not the "wealthiest nation in the world" in any meaningful sense (that is, normalized by population). It's in 6th-8th place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita Also, it's not a matter of being able to afford something. Maybe a country could afford to put everyone on welfare and thus free them of work. Does it mean it should do so? I'd say no. Edited February 1, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 The US is not the "wealthiest nation in the world" in any meaningful sense (that is, normalized by population). It's in 6th-8th place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita Also, it's not a matter of being able to afford something. Maybe a country could afford to put everyone on welfare and thus free them of work. Does it mean it should do so? I'd say no. Richer than Canada, at 11th - 17th place, that manages to do it all right, by some measures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 Yes, sorry for having an opinion. Would you make rather make it illegal for me to express it ? Unlike the debate on "fluff news", I don't want to ban your opinion. I just want people to want something better. Something better than Shady's opinions? I think we all deserve that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 And a big win by both houses will leave Obama free to create a real legacy for the future. The wealthiest nation in the world can afford to provide healthcare for all its citizens, and I would be happy for them if they did it. But that doesn't mean it wants to. Clearly it is a matter of much contention. Health care is not a right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 But that doesn't mean it wants to. Clearly it is a matter of much contention. Health care is not a right. It doesn't mean it doesn't want to either. The Laffler curve may be ready to bend the other way ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 It doesn't mean it doesn't want to either. The Laffler curve may be ready to bend the other way ! In the current economic landscape, less is more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 The US is not the "wealthiest nation in the world" in any meaningful sense (that is, normalized by population). It's in 6th-8th place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita Fair point, but look at the countries ranked above it. Do countries like Qatar, Luxembourg, Brunei, Liechtenstein, & Bermuda really count? I can fit their total populations in my car. Because of their incredibly small population, their GDP per capita is more of a statistical anomaly. At least Singapore and Norway have a few million people. How about this: among countries with more than 5 million people, the US is the richest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 (edited) BTW, i public healthcare is truly unconstitutional, that sucks for Americans. I guess they will continue to lag in OECD/UN health stats for a while more despite their great wealth. The whole US healthcare debate is why i hate ideology. Some people would rather keep to a rigid ideal than live longer and lower the child mortality rate. Edited February 2, 2011 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 BTW, i public healthcare is truly unconstitutional, that sucks for Americans. I guess they will continue to lag in OECD/UN health stats for a while more despite their great wealth. The "Obamacare" law has nothing to do with "public healthcare", in case you didn't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 The "Obamacare" law has nothing to do with "public healthcare", in case you didn't know. Exactly. But some people don't pay attention to details. Anyways, somebody else saw a problem with individual mandates as well. Somebody back in 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 BTW, i public healthcare is truly unconstitutional, that sucks for Americans. America was founded long before any ideas about public healthcare. I guess they will continue to lag in OECD/UN health stats for a while more despite their great wealth. ..and lead in others. The whole US healthcare debate is why i hate ideology. Some people would rather keep to a rigid ideal than live longer and lower the child mortality rate. There's more to life than just living longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 One of the parties will have to seek leave to appeal. The USSC will take this up but the current makeup of the court does not insure the result you imply. As much as I utterly despise this statute, I'm not sure that ruling it unconstitutional is the way to go. I haven't read the ruling yet but I strongly suspect it reflects the judge's political and policy beliefs rather than a reading of the Constitution. I'd much rather simply see Congress refuse to fund it. A constitutional challenge, especially one where the justification is weak, is undemocratic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 The "Obamacare" law has nothing to do with "public healthcare", in case you didn't know. ... in the context of Medicaid eligibility expansion ... in the context of Medicare reforms ... in the context of bettering the "public" in terms of existing pre-condition coverage but, of course, it's not the single-payer public option... and it's but one of 4 judges rulings, to-date. I'm also quite impressed with the countering Tea-Party mentality that (now) wants to push for a law to force Americans to own guns. If you're "forced" to buy health insurance... surely... you can be forced to purchase a gun! Only in America! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.