If ObamaCare unconstitutional, who be...

If ObamaCare unconstitutional, who benefits most?

Created by Enzyte Bob on Mar 27, 2012

18 votes

Click on an option to vote

Barry Soetoro (public forgets it ever happened)

Barry Soetoro (will run against the Supreme Court)

Mitt Romney (public forgets about RomneyCare)

Mitt Romney (public still angry about ObamaCare)

None of the Above.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Since: Dec 11

West Chester, OH

#2 Mar 27, 2012
Can any lib tell me why a member of the Obama administration who worked on crafting the bill is sitting on the bench now deeming herself impartial enough to rule on said disaster?
Breyer is sickening with his smirkey little retorts. He doesn't give two sh$%ts about the constitution. Kennedy knows he is the all powerful difference. I would say he is looking to rule in favor of the travesty but I hear he has a big ego being the swing vote much of the time. Zero's petulant little put down of the SCOTUS while they had to sit and listen may just be the his chance to stick it to the chicago organizer.
George Jefferson Hilliard

“Accept No Substitutes”

Since: Oct 11

Millbury, OH

#3 Mar 27, 2012
Toobin: Obama healthcare reform law 'in grave, grave trouble'
By Daniel Strauss - 03/27/12 12:20 PM ET

A top legal analyst predicted Tuesday that the Obama administration's healthcare reform legislation seemed likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court.

Jeffrey Toobin, a lawyer and legal analyst, who writes about legal topics for The New Yorker said the law looked to be in "trouble." He called it a "trainwreck for the Obama administration."

"This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong," Toobin said Tuesday on CNN. "I think this law is in grave, grave trouble."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/n...
Reality Speaks

Grove City, OH

#4 Mar 28, 2012
none of the above

The citizens of America will keep freedom.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#5 Mar 28, 2012
Shanikwah wrote:
Zero's petulant little put down of the SCOTUS while they had to sit and listen may just be the his chance to stick it to the chicago organizer.
Interesting point, I had forgotten about Obama’s public put down of the SCOTUS.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#6 Mar 28, 2012
None of the above.

The problem of unaffordable and inaccessible health care will remain unabated. The dream of a bipartisan solution will fade. In 20 more years we may have another scramble at solving the problem--which by then will impact the cost of every American product, the education of our children, our safety from public health threats and on and one.
Enzyte Bob

Columbus, OH

#7 Mar 28, 2012
FKA Reader wrote:
None of the above.
The problem of unaffordable and inaccessible health care will remain unabated. The dream of a bipartisan solution will fade. In 20 more years we may have another scramble at solving the problem--which by then will impact the cost of every American product, the education of our children, our safety from public health threats and on and one.
Nothing is affordable when you pass it out for free. That's what you liberals simply don't get.

Everybody should carry catastrophic insurance.

The poor should have access to the county health department for their needs.

Everybody else should be pay as you go for services, including optional insurance. If you have money for cable, cell phones, vacations, new cars, going out to dinner, etc. you have money for your own health care.

For some reason, Econ 101 seems to be lost on all you people. Each and every one of you are leeches expecting someone else to pick up the tab.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#8 Mar 28, 2012
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing is affordable when you pass it out for free. That's what you liberals simply don't get.
Everybody should carry catastrophic insurance.
The poor should have access to the county health department for their needs.
Everybody else should be pay as you go for services, including optional insurance. If you have money for cable, cell phones, vacations, new cars, going out to dinner, etc. you have money for your own health care.
For some reason, Econ 101 seems to be lost on all you people. Each and every one of you are leeches expecting someone else to pick up the tab.
You been to the Franklin County Health Department lately? They handle restaurant inspections, tick collection, mosquito spraying and the like. No health care.

Now the CITY Health Department is responsible for funding several clinics that operate on a sliding fee scale for low-income folks without insurance, as well as those who have coverage but have a hard time getting care (those with mental illnesses, those who bounce on and off of coverage, those who have a monthly Medicaid spend-down and the like, those who live in certain areas of the city). This is primary care only, with occasional working relationships with specialists. Doesn't cover hospital care, but can help folks understand the rules of getting "free" care for hospitalization when necessary. These health centers operate on a combination of city funding, federal funding, patient fees and insurance reimbursement.

Columbus, by the way, is fairly unique in the amount of local support for these health centers.

What conservatives don't get is how much it costs to assume that those who cannot afford to pay for coverage can just go to the county health department. When it comes to health care it is always an issue of pay me now or pay me later. And health care delayed is always more expensive.
Enzyte Bob

Columbus, OH

#9 Mar 28, 2012
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>

What conservatives don't get is how much it costs to assume that those who cannot afford to pay for coverage can just go to the county health department. When it comes to health care it is always an issue of pay me now or pay me later. And health care delayed is always more expensive.
I have no problem helping out people who cannot pay. That said, any service you can afford can only be as much as your wallet can reach.

We "need" all kinds of things, but when someone else is picking up the tab nobody ever bothers to ask what they can do without. In fact, nobody feels obligated to do without ... Hence, the situation we are in with all kinds of people who feel "entitled" to all kinds of free stuff somebody else gets stuck paying for.

No matter how hard you liberals try, you will never be able to get it to work. It's called Econ 101.

I have no problem with providing the basics for people who can't afford it. Anything over and above that should be on your dime, whether that means paying for things yourself or buying insurance.

And by buying insurance, I mean the insurance YOU WANT. Not some government-engineered policy where I am forced to buy coverage for viagra, chiropractors and birth control just because some lobbyist got a payoff.

Free markets work every time they are tried. Government market distortion (as well as crony capitalism) fails, every time it's tried as well.

Since: Dec 11

Dayton, OH

#10 Mar 28, 2012
What you libs don't "get" is that this is a power grab and your only argument is "the means justifies the end" and of course that silly old constitution is outdated and can be interpreted to suit political whims, especially when such and an important issue as "free health care shiit for me" is on the line.......If Zero had integrity he would have proposed a single payer government boondoggle like the rest of the socialist country's have. Instead he wants to weasel it by in "regulating" under the commerce clause, All ya'll buy or be penalized, ignoring the constitution. Say it's a freakin entitlement and raise the money and argue on principle.
Here's a question for you. If I am forced to by insurance and it is exorbitantly high, so high in fact I can possibly afford it. There is no guarantee of affordability, only a direction to buy? Why can't you understand this principle. Congress HAS the power to tax and spend for whatever they wish. But....oh.....then they would have to answer to the voters.....and the illusion of gimmie sompan for nuttin would vanish.
Enzyte Bob

Columbus, OH

#11 Mar 28, 2012
Shanikwah wrote:
Here's a question for you. If I am forced to by insurance and it is exorbitantly high, so high in fact I can possibly afford it. There is no guarantee of affordability, only a direction to buy? Why can't you understand this principle. Congress HAS the power to tax and spend for whatever they wish. But....oh.....then they would have to answer to the voters.....and the illusion of gimmie sompan for nuttin would vanish.
There are a bunch of issues within that issue. When I buy insurance for my house, they don't force me to buy coverage for towing or collision, nor do I get free oil changes and fill ups. Plus, if I have a bad driving record, I pay through the nose. Likewise if I buy homeowners insurance. I'm not required to buy flood insurance and earthquake insurance, and if I have a lot of claims I pay through the nose. Why is it then that I have to pay for some slut's birth control, somebody else's chiropractic treatments, and someone else's sex change operations?

What insurance is supposed to be for is to keep you from risk of losing everything if you have a debilitating illness. It's not supposed to be a bill paying service/Enron-style off-the-books welfare program.

I don't need a bill paying service. Just protect me from major expenses that would wipe me out. I'll pay for everything else myself.
George Jefferson Hilliard

“Accept No Substitutes”

Since: Oct 11

Millbury, OH

#12 Mar 28, 2012
It's toast, folks!

Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law

By David G. Savage

March 28, 2012, 8:35 a.m.
Reporting from Washington—

The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.

Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.

The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.

"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ju...
Enzyte Bob

Columbus, OH

#13 Mar 28, 2012
Did you know that Justice Nino Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg are actually best of buds?

True.

That said, the Court takes its job seriously. Something is going to really have to cross the line before the Court is going to undo something passed by a democratically elected Congress.

God knows, I am NOT a constitutional scholar. Business, property and tax (and insurance ... lol) are my forte. So take this for what it's worth:

Alone, I don't think the unconstitutionality individual mandate would be enough for the Court to strike this down. I think the real problem is going to be the lack of limiting principle. The fact that if they can mandate you buy insurance, then they can also mandate you buy broccoli is going to be what torpedoes this law. If the government had provided (or if in chambers they can come up with) a specific rationale that limits this law to this situation only, then I think it survives.

The Court is not going to walk all over Congress if it doesn't have to.
Enzyte Bob

Columbus, OH

#14 Mar 28, 2012
P.S. I also think the law gets declared unconstitutional, but don't be surprised if it doesn't. But only if they come up with a rationale that doesn't give the government carte blanche to do whatever it wants (the limiting principle).

I think they are going to make a serious attempt to err on the side of caution, so don't be surprised if they rule to keep the law in place.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#15 Mar 28, 2012
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a bunch of issues within that issue. When I buy insurance for my house, they don't force me to buy coverage for towing or collision, nor do I get free oil changes and fill ups. Plus, if I have a bad driving record, I pay through the nose. Likewise if I buy homeowners insurance. I'm not required to buy flood insurance and earthquake insurance, and if I have a lot of claims I pay through the nose. Why is it then that I have to pay for some slut's birth control, somebody else's chiropractic treatments, and someone else's sex change operations?
What insurance is supposed to be for is to keep you from risk of losing everything if you have a debilitating illness. It's not supposed to be a bill paying service/Enron-style off-the-books welfare program.
I don't need a bill paying service. Just protect me from major expenses that would wipe me out. I'll pay for everything else myself.
In fact, insurance used to be much more like that. The move to HMOs came about because the insurers, and others, became aware of how backwards that was in terms of cost containment.
Enzyte Bob

Columbus, OH

#16 Mar 28, 2012
FKA Reader wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact, insurance used to be much more like that. The move to HMOs came about because the insurers, and others, became aware of how backwards that was in terms of cost containment.
I will agree with Bill O'Reilly on this one, which is that it's one thing to have a company run the numbers and decide what is beneficial from the stand point of cost containment. The market dictates. Its completely different when the government, acting usually at the behest of various lobby groups, mandates things.

Don't think it happened? Google the history of the recently abandoned "food pyramid" and how it was a creature of lobbyist input instead of actual unbiased nutritional guidance. One reason why America is fatter than ever.

Same thing ALWAYS happens when you create a pool of money confiscated from others. There will always be people looking for a piece of it.

“Queen of my domain”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#17 Mar 28, 2012
Obama definitely will suffer politically.

But I agree wholeheartedly with RS, and amazingly even with Enzyte on some of his points. The more "free" something becomes, the more expensive it is to all. It is also a mandate that says employers MUST provide certain services via their policy and those providers MUST provide them with no out of pocket costs to the patient -- services which have become politically expedient to the cause (ie, birth control nonsense).

This has little to do with the inability to obtain health care. This has everything to do with forcing people to purchase health care and mandated coverage levels. So that thought means it is still NOT free and it has NOT become "universal" in the sense all tax payers are covered as in Canada or Great Britain.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#18 Mar 28, 2012
Enzyte Bob wrote:
P.S. I also think the law gets declared unconstitutional, but don't be surprised if it doesn't. But only if they come up with a rationale that doesn't give the government carte blanche to do whatever it wants (the limiting principle).
I think they are going to make a serious attempt to err on the side of caution, so don't be surprised if they rule to keep the law in place.
I wouldn't place any bets either way at this point, despite the way things looked in court today.

What do you think of the possibility of a narrowly tailored finding? In other words, tossing the individual mandate but only that? Seems as though that would toss it back to Congress. They would have to do something (Congressional inertia was one of the topics of discussion today)--because the elimination of pre-existing conditions really rests on being able to bring in all the young, healthy gamblers.

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#19 Mar 28, 2012
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no problem helping out people who cannot pay. That said, any service you can afford can only be as much as your wallet can reach.
We "need" all kinds of things, but when someone else is picking up the tab nobody ever bothers to ask what they can do without. In fact, nobody feels obligated to do without ... Hence, the situation we are in with all kinds of people who feel "entitled" to all kinds of free stuff somebody else gets stuck paying for.
No matter how hard you liberals try, you will never be able to get it to work. It's called Econ 101.
I have no problem with providing the basics for people who can't afford it. Anything over and above that should be on your dime, whether that means paying for things yourself or buying insurance.
And by buying insurance, I mean the insurance YOU WANT. Not some government-engineered policy where I am forced to buy coverage for viagra, chiropractors and birth control just because some lobbyist got a payoff.
Free markets work every time they are tried. Government market distortion (as well as crony capitalism) fails, every time it's tried as well.
Ummmmm, where on this planet is there an example of the free market working to ensure free and fair access to health care?

“Don't trust the internet!”

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#20 Mar 28, 2012
Enzyte Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
I will agree with Bill O'Reilly on this one, which is that it's one thing to have a company run the numbers and decide what is beneficial from the stand point of cost containment. The market dictates. Its completely different when the government, acting usually at the behest of various lobby groups, mandates things.
Don't think it happened? Google the history of the recently abandoned "food pyramid" and how it was a creature of lobbyist input instead of actual unbiased nutritional guidance. One reason why America is fatter than ever.
Same thing ALWAYS happens when you create a pool of money confiscated from others. There will always be people looking for a piece of it.
And the four food groups prior to that benefitted dairy farmers, among others.

On the other hand--what you are advocating is to remove even the pretense of rationality in filtering through those lobbying groups. Those food groups did two things. One thing, historically, was to provide mass education as a means of improving the status of public health. In other words, if people understand, they can make wise choices. Second, they set standards for government funded programs--like school lunches.

Now then, you have a recommended replacement for either of those functions. You know, one that is impervious to lobbying (which on a personal level is more commonly known as advertising or marketing).
The Author

Columbus, OH

#21 Mar 28, 2012
Shanikwah wrote:
Can any lib tell me why a member of the Obama administration who worked on crafting the bill is sitting on the bench now deeming herself impartial enough to rule on said disaster?
Breyer is sickening with his smirkey little retorts. He doesn't give two sh$%ts about the constitution. Kennedy knows he is the all powerful difference. I would say he is looking to rule in favor of the travesty but I hear he has a big ego being the swing vote much of the time. Zero's petulant little put down of the SCOTUS while they had to sit and listen may just be the his chance to stick it to the chicago organizer.
Not knowing all the details, but on the surface, this lib would agree with you on Sotomayor. It is up to each justice to recuse themselves, but if they don't there is no recourse, unless you want to try impeachment. However, listening to the arguments does not mean she can't recuse herself later, and it probably won't show up until the decision is handed down.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Stupid is as stupid does 15 min Taylor 15
Can We Get a Refund onTrump ? 1 hr DMoriaty 11
Congress 1 hr DMoriaty 11
Middle Class will now be paying for the wall. 1 hr DMoriaty 7
Government Waste from the GOP. 1 hr DMoriarty 12
She left the Tower! 1 hr DMoriarty 11
Coal States- keep that deadly Fuel out of Ohio 1 hr DMoriarty 15
Melania Human Rights Speech Left out Health Care 1 hr DMoriarty 15
Trump and Pence losing popularity 19 hr Thunder Paws 43
Worlds fastest growing religion is..... 21 hr Pope Che Reagan C... 246

Columbus Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbus Mortgages