Thoughts on this view point for the decision?
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398...ith-obamacare/
Printable View
Thoughts on this view point for the decision?
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398...ith-obamacare/
Interesting perspective, certainly gave me pause to consider the angle, but I dont think that was the intent of the opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
While the outlook from that article is positive, and I still question why Roberts didn't side with the conservative justices and strike the whole thing down, I do understand the meaning behind his decision.
The problem is, not everyone will see it that way, and many many many many more Americans are going to suffer because of this. Financially and beyond. Health care is already increasing premiums and cutting back services/protections etc. that is a dead nuts fact. The only way around this is an excess in income to pay out of pocket or be able to cover the very large out-of-pocket expenses that are becoming the norm of typical health coverage.
Right now most places, private and .gov, are going to Health Savings Accounts, or High Deductible plans. You can build up a savings and money is donated each year, but if something big happens, you can face some serious out of pocket expenses.
My son is 9 months old, my out of pocket expense for him was roughly $1000, a bit more thanks to good health insurance. If he was born the year before, it would have only been $500 out of pocket. If I were to have him now...in 2012, the out of pocket is now $2000. That is with the same health insurance, same plan, although higher premiums. The cost charged by the hospital was $14,000. nothing special, no complications, just regular child birth.
I can't see how in just over 2 years, the price to have a kid quadruples....other than the fact than obamacare was passed. My parents, 27 years ago when I was born paid $250. so in 26 years, the cost doubled. then all of a sudden it quadruples in a very short time? uh yeah...something is fucked up there.
So, while the article sounds great, and hopefully the plan is to rid the country of obama for good...and I hope Romney stays true to his word to repeal all of this...and I am more than willing to give him his chance, I still don't support Roberts decision. I feel it would have been better to uproot the whole thing and rid the law books of it completely.
Our daughter was born in 2007 and just her being born cost $5,000 if I remember correctly. That was on a high deductible plan because no one was expecting to become pregnant.
It all depends on the plan. there is an option for a high deductible plan and that would cost $5000 out of pocket right now. My problem is the amount that health costs have gone up since obama got it....and when you think about it, most everything. gas, food, healthcareQuote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I'm saying that if our kid cost $5,000 back in 2007 when things were relatively cheap, I expect it to be even more now and in the future, especially since more and more health care plans are high deductible. The plans have also gotten worse at the same time as costing more. This really sucks so far.
You don't think that worldwide economic crisis that started in 2007 and continues today had anything to do with rising costs, do you? It's all Obama's fault?Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
I still haven't had time to read enough to understand the full impact of this ruling.
My initial reaction was "WTF was Roberts thinking?". And anger...especially at Roberts.
But...the more I think about it the more I'm wondering (like the article Irving linked to) if Roberts ruling wasn't actually a really smart decision.
I see upsides to the decision as well as downsides. The downsides appear to be short-term. The upsides appear to be more long-term. Have to wait and see.
But I'm not jumping on the "this is the end of the Republic as we know it" bandwagon.
I think this quote from Roberts really sums up the entire situation:
Remember that in November. Consider the long-term impact of your choice...not just the short-term "feel-good" impact of your choice.Quote:
Roberts went on to say the court's role is to interpret the law, not make policy judgments which is for lawmakers "who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
Jacked from a blog I read daily
ex-.mil gunny and a pretty smart guy it seems over all
http://oldnfo.blogspot.com/
Quote:
A different "take" on the SCOTUS decision...
Had 'quite' a discussion on this at the meeting this morning, and here's a bit of a different take proposed...
I actually tend to believe this IS the longer term goal of SCOTUS, and that is to put this back in front of the voters...
Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.
It will be a short-lived celebration.
Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
e.g. Commerce Clause is NOT applicable!
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
It WAS and IS a Tax, plain and simple! And the true cost is going to be HIGH!!! There is some BS out there that it will 'only' cost $95/person/year... Yeah, right... MY employer provided insurance (which is good world wide) is $700/mo. $95/yr ain't gettin there...
And what about the 47% that DON'T pay taxes? Who's going to pay 'their' $95???
Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?
Makes opt out a reality WITHOUT the administration being able to penalize them!!!
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.
Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.
Hopefully!
And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.
Brilliant.
Yep! :-)
Yup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
I think you could see in Obammy's face yesterday morning he knows it is a shallow win.
He crapped on the SCOTUS twice. I don't see them as being too forgiving or forgetful of that fact.
Again let's not forget the fact that 70% of the population opposed Obamacare. As long as Romney plays his cards cool this decision will have a way of swinging a bunch of undecided voters against Obama.
Yesterday may in fact could have been a fatal day to O's re-election chances between this ruling and EH being held in contempt.