CNN just announced the ruling on OBama was upheld 6-3

You have to pay Social Security and you have to pay Medicare so healthcare is no different.

Verdict IN Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CNN just announced the ruling on OBama was upheld
> 6-3


Funny it is not out yet and there is more than 1 ruling on it so....but nice try

Real Ruling!

The individual mandate survives as a tax.

individual mandate is struck down.

What a mess



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2012 10:17AM by Viscount Monteforte d_Alsace.

Lester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> individual mandate is struck down.

Poor people no longer have to buy healthcare.

So the mandate is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court

The Medicaid provision is limited but not invalidated.

Cool maybe now we can get rid of having to pay taxes!

The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.

Individual mandate will stay as tax.

It means they can coerce you to get coverage under a government plan, such as Medicare or Medicaid, but they can't force you to buy private insurance. Go to single-payor, set up a global tax and voucher system for private insurance, or some hybrid of the two.

I can't find a straight answer on this. Is it struck down or not? The fucking news outlets can't seem to get a straight answer.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't find a straight answer on this. Is it
> struck down or not? The fucking news outlets can't
> seem to get a straight answer.


it is upheld 5-4. Roberts was the swing. Minor provision was struck down.

Obama care is constitutional.

basicdd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I can't find a straight answer on this. Is it
> > struck down or not? The fucking news outlets
> can't
> > seem to get a straight answer.
>
>
> it is upheld 5-4. Roberts was the swing. Minor
> provision was struck down.
>
> Obama care is constitutional.


This is hilarious! The Tea Baggers were on the steps screaming that Obama doesn't care about the Constitution. Well, apparently he does!

This is really something.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

So it's upheld since the penalties are implmented through the IRS?

basicdd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I can't find a straight answer on this. Is it
> > struck down or not? The fucking news outlets
> can't
> > seem to get a straight answer.
>
>
> it is upheld 5-4. Roberts was the swing. Minor
> provision was struck down.
>
> Obama care is constitutional.

If it is 5-4 how can one decide who of the 5 is the deciding vote????

Reagan4US Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> basicdd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I can't find a straight answer on this. Is it
> > > struck down or not? The fucking news outlets
> > can't
> > > seem to get a straight answer.
> >
> >
> > it is upheld 5-4. Roberts was the swing.
> Minor
> > provision was struck down.
> >
> > Obama care is constitutional.
>
> If it is 5-4 how can one decide who of the 5 is
> the deciding vote????
The court is made up of 4 consistent Liberals, and 4 consistent conservatives with 1 moderate. Usually the moderate breaks the vote. This time the moderate joined the conservatives, but 1 conservative joined the liberals.

go figure.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> basicdd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I can't find a straight answer on this. Is it
> > > struck down or not? The fucking news outlets
> > can't
> > > seem to get a straight answer.
> >
> >
> > it is upheld 5-4. Roberts was the swing.
> Minor
> > provision was struck down.
> >
> > Obama care is constitutional.
>
>
> This is hilarious! The Tea Baggers were on the
> steps screaming that Obama doesn't care about the
> Constitution. Well, apparently he does!
>
> This is really something.

Yup, teabaggers were flying flags chanting we won, then seconds later one or two teabagger flags and and barely any waving.

Reagan4US Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If it is 5-4 how can one decide who of the 5 is
> the deciding vote????

Because of the purported conservative/non-conservative leaning of the judges; it was 'expected" the "conservatives" would strike it down; they didn't.

My question is:

Where is Wingnut?

I could be wrong but I'm right 99% of the time

A sad day for lobbyist.

Please shed a tear for big pharma.

And I apologize for saying in the past that Roberts was bought and paid for.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is hilarious! The Tea Baggers were on the
> steps screaming that Obama doesn't care about the
> Constitution. Well, apparently he does!
>
> This is really something.


Typical WTL logic. What does the court's decision have to do with whether or not Obama cares about the Constitution?

StupidLeft Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...whether or not Obama cares about the Constitution?

Soon will be campaign finance reform where the Supremes totally blew it, Obama called them on it, and Alito was stupid enough to politically publicly mouth "wrong" when Obama said in no uncertain terms what it meant for foreign influence on US elections.

John Roberts believes in precedent. Precedent was set under the SCOTUS rulings on Social Security and Medicare. Big win for Obama. Even I couldn't have fathomed this outcome.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

StupidLeft Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > This is hilarious! The Tea Baggers were on the
> > steps screaming that Obama doesn't care about
> the
> > Constitution. Well, apparently he does!
> >
> > This is really something.
>
>
> Typical WTL logic. What does the court's decision
> have to do with whether or not Obama cares about
> the Constitution?

Stupidleft = Schizophrenia is a mental disorder that makes it hard to: Tell the difference between what is real and not real; Think clearly; Have normal emotional responses; Act normally in social situations.

Robert Reich was very close in his prediction yesterday of how this would come out. Roberts was concerned that another blatantly political ruling would undermine the credibility of his court and his legacy.

I should remind the read that this interaction between the Administration and a conservative Supreme Court is a remarkable replay of the 1930's, in which the Court, packed with the legacy of prior Republican administrations, repeatedly struck down elements of the New Deal.

I think the most reliable forecast is that rational discussion will continue to decrease, while polarized hysteria will dominate much of the commentary and most of the conversation.

All this is of most interest to us because of its significance on the inability to generate economic recovery.

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John Roberts believes in precedent. Precedent was
> set under the SCOTUS rulings on Social Security
> and Medicare. Big win for Obama. Even I couldn't
> have fathomed this outcome.


I also believe he was smart enough to realize an unconstitutional ruling would have a severe impact on future healthcare reforms, and he wanted history to see him on the right side of the issue.

My guess is that Roberts felt that even if the law was terrible, it was the job of Congress, not the Supreme Court to fix it.

FUNdamental Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > John Roberts believes in precedent. Precedent
> was
> > set under the SCOTUS rulings on Social Security
> > and Medicare. Big win for Obama. Even I
> couldn't
> > have fathomed this outcome.
>
>
> I also believe he was smart enough to realize an
> unconstitutional ruling would have a severe impact
> on future healthcare reforms, and he wanted
> history to see him on the right side of the issue.


True. Precedent was probably what Roberts needed to justify "legislating from the bench," or whatever he will be accused of doing.

Funny. Looks like Roberts is evolving into Warren Burger. LOL!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My guess is that Roberts felt that even if the law
> was terrible, it was the job of Congress, not the
> Supreme Court to fix it.


^ About the only smart thing said in this thread thus far.

Although Dems will call it a win for this particular law however they can get it, really the decision affirms state's rights under the commerce clause which was the larger issue and the point argued by the 'left' to justify the ability of the Feds to do whatever they want.

It seems to be dagger for large insurance companies selling the same policies across state borders with disregard for the states' regulations.

Pubs can reform health reform with their plan to tax health insurance premiums.

Now we are missing the most important part of the thread.

The OP trolled with 6-3 upheld before the ruling was announced.
1. He was correct for the most part
2. He sourced CNN, which got it wrong. so irony.

> ...It seems to be dagger for large insurance companies...

A major financial analysis firm, Fitch, just said:

>>> "...06/28/2012 11:51 *DJ Fitch: No Meaningful Change In Fincl Results Have
>>> Registered Since Various Parts Of ACA Implemented..."

Maybe the "issue" has been blown out of proportion by Republicans scrambling to find SOMETHING to stand for?

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My guess is that Roberts felt that even if the law
> was terrible, it was the job of Congress, not the
> Supreme Court to fix it.

Bill N. you are dead on correct. I concur with Roberts. This is going to have a devastating effect on the economy through November. Until this is repealed you can kiss any chance of recovery goodbye because it ain't happenin' cap'ain.

This has to happen before 2014 otherwise at minimum 1/3rd of all employers will drop healthcare benefits for their employees. Then the 6000 already newly hired IRS agents will be hot on their asses.

This has already been one expensive lesson for the American people. Especially for former Obama supporters. Buyers remorse is now in full swing and Obama will pay the cost for this mess in November as will the Democrats. By this time next year Obama and his stupid ACA law will be in Americas rear view mirror.

And maybe, just maybe the next time someone comes along with a jar full of magic beans the dumb ass voters will be more the wiser.

On the economy, still years ahead of Bush years. The ruling didn't change anything so the recovery will continue.

What Obama said in his speech was the same as when the ACA passed.... You can't be dropped suddenly from your insurance, no rejection for pre-existing conditions, insurance companies can't jack up rates without notification, and you can State shop for insurance.

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> StupidLeft Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...whether or not Obama cares about the
> Constitution?
>
> Soon will be campaign finance reform where the
> Supremes totally blew it, Obama called them on it,
> and Alito was stupid enough to politically
> publicly mouth "wrong" when Obama said in no
> uncertain terms what it meant for foreign
> influence on US elections.


Stupid fuck. Two days ago the court just threw out the Montana attempt to circumvent Citizens United. You are a fucking idiot. Just sayin.....

Have you seen the Republican healthcare reform plan. OMG!

If you're not mad now about Obamacare wait to until you see the shit Republicans are suggesting. Total fuck up the ass of the system!

I'd say republicans should just table their Healthcare plans until after the election.

Restore State Leadership and Flexibility

Mitt will begin by returning states to their proper place in charge of regulating local insurance markets and caring for the poor, uninsured, and chronically ill. States will have both the incentive and the flexibility to experiment, learn from one another, and craft the approaches best suited to their own citizens.

Block grant Medicaid and other payments to states
Limit federal standards and requirements on both private insurance and Medicaid coverage
Ensure flexibility to help the uninsured, including public-private partnerships, exchanges, and subsidies
Ensure flexibility to help the chronically ill, including high-risk pools, reinsurance, and risk adjustment
Offer innovation grants to explore non-litigation alternatives to dispute resolution
Promote Free Markets and Fair Competition

Competition drives improvements in efficiency and effectiveness, offering consumers higher quality goods and services at lower cost. It can have the same effect in the health care system, if given the chance to work.

Cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits
Empower individuals and small businesses to form purchasing pools
Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage
Facilitate IT interoperability
Empower Consumer Choice

For markets to work, consumers must have the information and the power to make decisions about their own care. Placing the patient at the center of the process will drive quality up and cost down while ensuring that services are designed to provide what Americans actually want.

End tax discrimination against the individual purchase of insurance
Allow consumers to purchase insurance across state lines
Unshackle HSAs by allowing funds to be used for insurance premiums
Promote "co-insurance" products
Promote alternatives to "fee for service"
Encourage "Consumer Reports"-type ratings of alternative insurance plans

Concerning America I think this sums it up

‘We shall destroy you from within’ -- Nikita Kruschev

This really changes nothing. Those that dont work and live off the tax dollars of others will continue to do so. If it had been defeated they were not going to suddenly go to work.

George W. had the opportunity to do what Romney is proposing and did nothing. HSAs are a fucking joke. Just a way for insurance companies to get out of paying for maintenance while still charging out the ass for premiums. And Bush never did figure out how to give industry and association groups the latitude to negotiate insurance rates across state lines short of adding a Constitutional Amendment, since "strict constructionists" are so fucking apoplectic about applying the Commerce Clause to anything.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> George W. had the opportunity to do what Romney is
> proposing and did nothing. HSAs are a fucking
> joke. Just a way for insurance companies to get
> out of paying for maintenance while still charging
> out the ass for premiums. And Bush never did
> figure out how to give industry and association
> groups the latitude to negotiate insurance rates
> across state lines short of adding a
> Constitutional Amendment, since "strict
> constructionists" are so fucking apoplectic about
> applying the Commerce Clause to anything.


Who gives a shit about Bush? He's a fucking retard, as his nomination of that coward Roberts proves once again. And your illogic continues to know no bounds.

Why Roberts Saved Obama’s Health-Care Law
Published: Friday, 29 Jun 2012 | 3:18 AM ET

Roberts hewed to a traditional Supreme Court principle that if the justices can find any constitutional grounds on which to uphold a law, they should do so. The 57-year-old chief justice also followed a stated principle of his own: narrowly deciding cases and trying to preserve the integrity of the judiciary in polarized Washington.

While he has voted consistently with the conservative bloc on social issues, such as abortion rights and racial policies, Roberts in his public remarks has suggested that he seeks, as chief, to transcend an ideological label. He routinely refers to the court's place in history and has bristled at polls and public commentary that suggest the high court acts in the same political realm as the two elected branches of government.

Indeed, in his comments during oral arguments in the health-care case, Roberts hinted that he could be open to siding with the government. He expressed concern that the court over which he presides might be seen as ignoring more than 75 years of precedent and rolling back U.S. law to the New Deal era. The last time the Supreme Court struck down a major act of Congress was in 1936, when the court invalidated a federal law that limited work hours and prescribed minimum wages for coal workers.

"He is positioning the court as the one, competent, principled institution in Washington," said Pamela Karlan, a Stanford University law professor. "The chief justice's opinion is designed to appear thoughtful, measured. He is in this for the long haul."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48008590