Why is Obamacare so important?

[Ame®icano]

What is it about this horrific program that the democrooks are so adamant about keeping in place, in spite of the incredible election loss they suffered in 2010 after barely getting it across the finish line?

It's a bullshit law. It did the exact opposite of every promise the meat puppet faggot made. The fuckin WEBSITE ALONE cost $1.7B and was a complete goatfuck. A handful of college dipshits created Face(ASS)Book for next to nothing and became billionaires. The entire law should have been flushed down a toilet but for some unknown reason we're still stuck trying to get rid of it. Even the republicrats act as if it needs to be "replaced".

It's a turd, you don't polish turds and pretend you made something better out of it. The reason HC costs so much is BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT, not because they needed to regulate the shit out of it more.

I hope that after ACB gets to fumigate the smell of sulphur and old diapers from RBG's old office she will put the final fork into this abysmal program and that the GOP led by Trump will get the fucking lawyers out of the medical industry.

.

Obamacare is more popular than Donald Trump. A majority want it modified not done away.

Healthcare would cost more without government intervention. People with pre-existing conditions would be unable to afford health insurance. People who are not poor enough for Medicare but not rich enough to afford health insurance would have to rely on emergency rooms. Insurance companies would be able to write policies that are totally useless.

If they do that then that proves that they are legislating from the bench. The only questionable requirement was that people must buy insurance. I do believe that it is however that is not in the law anymore. It is constitutional now. That would be more than enough reason to expand the court.

The mandate was repealed. One suggested legislative fix from the dems to insure (-: Barrett cannot find the ACA illegal was to actually enact a small tax, even $10 a year, on those who don't have health insurance. As it stands now, there is no tax on not having insurance. But there's no requirement to buy it either. If it literally raised revenue from those not insured, then it would literally be a tax, and for an originalist that would have to make it const.

(I'm leery that any of these justices are actually orginalist. Gorsuch claims to be a textualist or "read it as it'd be understood today." But doing that would be contrary to current gop thought on stuff like the commerce clause. So we'll see.

I'm for the govt helping people get care by taxing the 1% and HC rproviders. I'm not a big fan of Obamacare and even less of Medicare for all though.

What other required purchases would you like the government to mandate?

And only a moron would think taxing HC providers is going to make HC cheaper.

only a moron would think insurance companies and providers will provide the cheapest service possible because its in patients best interests

When they compete against each other they do provide cheaper service.

Only moron would think that government can provide the service that would save us money.

 

[Ame®icano]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Sure. It's not a perfect system, by any means. Both of our entrenched parties have used it as you observe. But it does provide some protection. Do want to just dump it altogether?

I just want judicial nominations and litigation to stop being petty political footballs but the right has turned the courts into such a political issue it’s been deteriorating the entire purpose of an independent judiciary.

C'mon. You really think that only the "right" appoints Judges sympathetic to their cause?

One way to improve the situation would be to require a 2/3 majority for confirmation. Requiring something closer to real consensus would go a long way.

That used to be the way, until Democrats (thanks Harry) changed the rules.

Like with everything else, it came back to bite them in the ass.

 

[Ame®icano]

You lost the case a decade ago. Installing new judges to win a case is not a legal strategy that is consistent with the constitution.

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

Who said that Justices have to agree with existing precedents?

 

[colfax_m]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Sure. It's not a perfect system, by any means. Both of our entrenched parties have used it as you observe. But it does provide some protection. Do want to just dump it altogether?

I just want judicial nominations and litigation to stop being petty political footballs but the right has turned the courts into such a political issue it’s been deteriorating the entire purpose of an independent judiciary.

C'mon. You really think that only the "right" appoints Judges sympathetic to their cause?

It’s more than just appointments, it’s how those appointments are handled and it’s how cases are taken to court. The right has made the judiciary a central point in their political campaigns. How often have you heard people say that they voted for Trump specifically to get conservative judges appointed? Is that how you think the founders foresaw this?

Yep. The left is the same way. How do you propose to fix it?

Not even close to the same.

By having the courts refused to be used as a political football. Refuse to overturn cases based solely on politics.

 

[dblack]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Sure. It's not a perfect system, by any means. Both of our entrenched parties have used it as you observe. But it does provide some protection. Do want to just dump it altogether?

I just want judicial nominations and litigation to stop being petty political footballs but the right has turned the courts into such a political issue it’s been deteriorating the entire purpose of an independent judiciary.

C'mon. You really think that only the "right" appoints Judges sympathetic to their cause?

It’s more than just appointments, it’s how those appointments are handled and it’s how cases are taken to court. The right has made the judiciary a central point in their political campaigns. How often have you heard people say that they voted for Trump specifically to get conservative judges appointed? Is that how you think the founders foresaw this?

Yep. The left is the same way. How do you propose to fix it?

Not even close to the same.

By having the courts refused to be used as a political football. Refuse to overturn cases based solely on politics.

So you have no fix?

 

[colfax_m]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Sure. It's not a perfect system, by any means. Both of our entrenched parties have used it as you observe. But it does provide some protection. Do want to just dump it altogether?

I just want judicial nominations and litigation to stop being petty political footballs but the right has turned the courts into such a political issue it’s been deteriorating the entire purpose of an independent judiciary.

C'mon. You really think that only the "right" appoints Judges sympathetic to their cause?

One way to improve the situation would be to require a 2/3 majority for confirmation. Requiring something closer to real consensus would go a long way.

Disagree. Judicial picks used to be nearly universally unanimous because the quality of a judge wasn’t based on politics. This is yet another sign that the judiciary has been distorted.

 

[colfax_m]

So you have no fix?

So long as we support the people who are the problem, what did fix could there possibly be?

 

[colfax_m]

That used to be the way, until Democrats (thanks Harry) changed the rules.

You’re mostly right, but in a different way than you think. The first filibuster to obstruct a judicial nominee was Reid in, like 2003 or something. The fact that we went 200+ years without requiring a 60 vote majority should tell you that the problem wasn’t whether there was or wasn’t the ability to filibuster.

 

[dblack]

So you have no fix?

So long as we support the people who are the problem, what did fix could there possibly be?

Beats me. But that's no fix. You're just talking about voting, which is extremely weak tea.

 

[dblack]

Judicial picks used to be nearly universally unanimous because the quality of a judge wasn’t based on politics. This is yet another sign that the judiciary has been distorted.

Which is why I proposed a 2/3 majority requirement for confirmation. That would, in most cases, require the majority party to get some crossover to have their way.

 

[bendog]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Yes …. and no.

The ACA required people to either buy (or be given govt) insurance or pay a tax. Don't shoot the piano player on that one, but it is not debatable that the ACA did that. It did.

While many many years ago, the taxing and spending power had to be tied to an enumerated power, one of those was regulation of interstate commerce. It's not logically possible to deny that HC in interstate commerce as it's 1/5 of the econ. But since 1980 the goper in the scotus have been reducing the commerce power clause. So, like Roberts found, there's not doubt that congress can tax and spend on HC.

But can they put a tax on requiring a person buy a private insurance contract? I dont' see a concrete answer on that. It does reveal a mindset of the dems. sort of a why not make people buy something that's good for them? lol

And then there's Roe. 60%plus believe the govt shouldn't require a woman to carry a zygot to term, and I agree, but damned if I can find that in the const. LOL

 

[dblack]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Yes …. and no.

The ACA required people to either buy (or be given govt) insurance or pay a tax. Don't shoot the piano player on that one, but it is not debatable that the ACA did that. It did.

While many many years ago, the taxing and spending power had to be tied to an enumerated power, one of those was regulation of interstate commerce. It's not logically possible to deny that HC in interstate commerce as it's 1/5 of the econ. But since 1980 the goper in the scotus have been reducing the commerce power clause. So, like Roberts found, there's not doubt that congress can tax and spend on HC.

But can they put a tax on requiring a person buy a private insurance contract? I dont' see a concrete answer on that. It does reveal a mindset of the dems. sort of a why not make people buy something that's good for them? lol

And then there's Roe. 60%plus believe the govt shouldn't require a woman to carry a zygot to term, and I agree, but damned if I can find that in the const. LOL

The dilemma that Roberts faced is subtle, but it's real and another conservative appointee will face the same dilemma. Basically, Roberts recognized that the mandate to buy insurance or pay a penalty, was fundamentally no different that any other tax incentive. They're ALL mandates. They're all are of the form "do X or pay a penalty". They all exist to expand Congressional authority to manipulate society.

I think he, and most other sane people, recognized that Congress forcing you to buy insurance from their cronies is wrong. But he also recognized that Congress has been doing that sort of thing for decades, and striking down the mandate would, essentially, put all of those other tax incentives in jeopardy. In other words, he didn't have the balls to do it.

 

[DBA]

If Republicans had a better solution to healthcare, they wouldn’t be desperately trying to shove through a SCOTUS justice to overturn it.

The ACA is important because Republicans don’t have any better ideas.

Having better solution, or not, has nothing to do with constitutionality. If law is unconstitutional, is should be repealed, period.

If law has been through a decade of court challenges. If it were unconstitutional, we’d know by now.

This is about Republicans using the courts to accomplish what they didn’t have the political ability to do.

No, it isn't. The individual mandate was unconstitutional and is now gone. Roberts was wrong. He sided with the 4 liberal judges who ALWAYS vote for liberal policies.

The ACA is effectively gone now. The only semblance left is the high insurance costs for those who do not qualify for heavily subsidized plans and pay through the nose and protection for those with pre-existing conditions. The pre-existing conditions will be protected.

Which is why ACA is, decidedly, not gone. Neither is the individual mandate. Republicans just dialed it down to zero. It's still the law of the land and Biden, especially if Republicans lose the Senate, will just dial it right back up.

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Is that exactly what, for example, Roe v. Wade did?

 

[colfax_m]

If Republicans had a better solution to healthcare, they wouldn’t be desperately trying to shove through a SCOTUS justice to overturn it.

The ACA is important because Republicans don’t have any better ideas.

Having better solution, or not, has nothing to do with constitutionality. If law is unconstitutional, is should be repealed, period.

If law has been through a decade of court challenges. If it were unconstitutional, we’d know by now.

This is about Republicans using the courts to accomplish what they didn’t have the political ability to do.

No, it isn't. The individual mandate was unconstitutional and is now gone. Roberts was wrong. He sided with the 4 liberal judges who ALWAYS vote for liberal policies.

The ACA is effectively gone now. The only semblance left is the high insurance costs for those who do not qualify for heavily subsidized plans and pay through the nose and protection for those with pre-existing conditions. The pre-existing conditions will be protected.

Which is why ACA is, decidedly, not gone. Neither is the individual mandate. Republicans just dialed it down to zero. It's still the law of the land and Biden, especially if Republicans lose the Senate, will just dial it right back up.

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Is that exactly what, for example, Roe v. Wade did?

Which justice was put on the court for the purpose of ruling for abortion?

Because I can tell you which justice was put on the court with the purpose of ruling against it.

 

[colfax_m]

Judicial picks used to be nearly universally unanimous because the quality of a judge wasn’t based on politics. This is yet another sign that the judiciary has been distorted.

Which is why I proposed a 2/3 majority requirement for confirmation. That would, in most cases, require the majority party to get some crossover to have their way.

Crossover what, exactly? That’s my point. Justices shouldn’t be picked to appeal to politics. They should be picked because they’re competent. The very fact that we are discussing judicial nominees appealing to political parties demonstrates the broken system.

 

[dblack]

Judicial picks used to be nearly universally unanimous because the quality of a judge wasn’t based on politics. This is yet another sign that the judiciary has been distorted.

Which is why I proposed a 2/3 majority requirement for confirmation. That would, in most cases, require the majority party to get some crossover to have their way.

Crossover what, exactly? That’s my point. Justices shouldn’t be picked to appeal to politics. They should be picked because they’re competent. The very fact that we are discussing judicial nominees appealing to political parties demonstrates the broken system.

You can "should" all day long, but that won't change the behavior of Congress. What I'm saying is that a 2/3 majority will, in most cases, prevent Justices from being confirmed on a party-line basis. Republicans would have to find some Democrats who agreed with them and vice versa.

 

[Flash]

Obamacare is one of the most despicable bills ever passed by Congress.

Passed along strict party lines in the dark of the night by yahoos that didn't even bother to read the damn bill.

 

[bendog]

What is it about this horrific program that the democrooks are so adamant about keeping in place, in spite of the incredible election loss they suffered in 2010 after barely getting it across the finish line?

It's a bullshit law. It did the exact opposite of every promise the meat puppet faggot made. The fuckin WEBSITE ALONE cost $1.7B and was a complete goatfuck. A handful of college dipshits created Face(ASS)Book for next to nothing and became billionaires. The entire law should have been flushed down a toilet but for some unknown reason we're still stuck trying to get rid of it. Even the republicrats act as if it needs to be "replaced".

It's a turd, you don't polish turds and pretend you made something better out of it. The reason HC costs so much is BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT, not because they needed to regulate the shit out of it more.

I hope that after ACB gets to fumigate the smell of sulphur and old diapers from RBG's old office she will put the final fork into this abysmal program and that the GOP led by Trump will get the fucking lawyers out of the medical industry.

.

Obamacare is more popular than Donald Trump. A majority want it modified not done away.

Healthcare would cost more without government intervention. People with pre-existing conditions would be unable to afford health insurance. People who are not poor enough for Medicare but not rich enough to afford health insurance would have to rely on emergency rooms. Insurance companies would be able to write policies that are totally useless.

If they do that then that proves that they are legislating from the bench. The only questionable requirement was that people must buy insurance. I do believe that it is however that is not in the law anymore. It is constitutional now. That would be more than enough reason to expand the court.

The mandate was repealed. One suggested legislative fix from the dems to insure (-: Barrett cannot find the ACA illegal was to actually enact a small tax, even $10 a year, on those who don't have health insurance. As it stands now, there is no tax on not having insurance. But there's no requirement to buy it either. If it literally raised revenue from those not insured, then it would literally be a tax, and for an originalist that would have to make it const.

(I'm leery that any of these justices are actually orginalist. Gorsuch claims to be a textualist or "read it as it'd be understood today." But doing that would be contrary to current gop thought on stuff like the commerce clause. So we'll see.

I'm for the govt helping people get care by taxing the 1% and HC rproviders. I'm not a big fan of Obamacare and even less of Medicare for all though.

What other required purchases would you like the government to mandate?

And only a moron would think taxing HC providers is going to make HC cheaper.

only a moron would think insurance companies and providers will provide the cheapest service possible because its in patients best interests

When they compete against each other they do provide cheaper service.

Only moron would think that government can provide the service that would save us money.

who competes with the largest insurance company in your state?

 

[colfax_m]

Judicial picks used to be nearly universally unanimous because the quality of a judge wasn’t based on politics. This is yet another sign that the judiciary has been distorted.

Which is why I proposed a 2/3 majority requirement for confirmation. That would, in most cases, require the majority party to get some crossover to have their way.

Crossover what, exactly? That’s my point. Justices shouldn’t be picked to appeal to politics. They should be picked because they’re competent. The very fact that we are discussing judicial nominees appealing to political parties demonstrates the broken system.

You can "should" all day long, but that won't change the behavior of Congress. What I'm saying is that a 2/3 majority will, in most cases, prevent Justices from being confirmed on a party-line basis. Republicans would have to find some Democrats who agreed with them and vice versa.

It wasn’t like this before, so I hardly think it’s out of reach to want it to go back to the way it was.

 

[dblack]

Judicial picks used to be nearly universally unanimous because the quality of a judge wasn’t based on politics. This is yet another sign that the judiciary has been distorted.

Which is why I proposed a 2/3 majority requirement for confirmation. That would, in most cases, require the majority party to get some crossover to have their way.

Crossover what, exactly? That’s my point. Justices shouldn’t be picked to appeal to politics. They should be picked because they’re competent. The very fact that we are discussing judicial nominees appealing to political parties demonstrates the broken system.

You can "should" all day long, but that won't change the behavior of Congress. What I'm saying is that a 2/3 majority will, in most cases, prevent Justices from being confirmed on a party-line basis. Republicans would have to find some Democrats who agreed with them and vice versa.

It wasn’t like this before, so I hardly think it’s out of reach to want it to go back to the way it was.

I guess if we all close our eyes and wish hard enough.

Why don't you think the 2/3 majority requirement would help?