Another Federal Court ruling on ObamaCare expected Monday

[Kulindahr]

So when is judicial activism good and when is it bad? Just asking.

Good when upholding individual rights and expanding their reach in the face of government power.

 

[JB3]

It wouldn't be meaningless, just perhaps less effective. But an ineffective law is not an unconstitutional one, huge difference. If the law would not be as effective without the mandate, then it's up to Congress to revise it in light of the judicial guidance they have received. Striking down the entire thing (when it is clearly not all unconstitutional) is a gross overreach. It's judicial activism, you know, the thing conservatives abhor when it doesn't go their way.

Except it isn't. Your definition of judicial activism is overly broad, and you've been told this in the past. As the opinion stated, quite clearly (I take it you have yet to read it, since you don't actually understand what he was saying), the mandate is so entwined in the law as a whole that he could not just strike down the mandate.

He quoted Obama's campaign statements in the summary just to rub it in, and he even referenced the Boston Tea Party, lol. In parts the opinion reads more like a political rant than a legal ruling.

So? He was providing proof that the mandate is not necessary for reform to be achieved, which Obama himself stated.

 

[hotatlboi]

So? He was providing proof that the mandate is not necessary for reform to be achieved, which Obama himself stated.

LMAO, you've just contradicted your earlier justification of the ruling.

If the mandate is not necessary, then he should have let Congress revise the law and just invalidate the part that he could provide reasoning for why it was unconstitutional.

By striking down the whole thing, he has claimed that every single part of the law (a massive 2000 page law, with many parts that have nothing to do with the mandate) is not viable without it.

 

[joaama]

So when is judicial activism good and when is it bad? Just asking.

The only ones that complain about judicial activism are conservatives.

When they agree with the judge, it's the greatest thing ever. When they don't, they want a mob to overthrow the judge.

The only time I see liberals say anything about judicial activism is when making fun of conservatives.

 

[Kulindahr]

Except it isn't. Your definition of judicial activism is overly broad, and you've been told this in the past. As the opinion stated, quite clearly (I take it you have yet to read it, since you don't actually understand what he was saying), the mandate is so entwined in the law as a whole that he could not just strike down the mandate.



So? He was providing proof that the mandate is not necessary for reform to be achieved, which Obama himself stated.

The only way it's "entwined" is that it's in the same bill. There is some economic linkage, but it's not a federal court's business to decide if a law makes economic sense, only if it makes constitutional sense.

And if he was indeed citing Obama for "proof that the mandate is not necessary for reform", then he's being very inconsistent, because all those other items in the law count as reform. So he plainly doesn't mean "reform", he means "what I consider to be reform" -- which isn't his business, either.

 

[rareboy]

And of course, the rest of the world will laugh once again when a country as powerful and important as the US still can't sort out affordable healthcare for its citizens.

 

[joaama]

1. with approximately 2/3 of the US citizens against ObamaCare

LMFAO! Good one.

 

[JB3]

And of course, the rest of the world will laugh once again when a country as powerful and important as the US still can't sort out affordable healthcare for its citizens.

Why should we care what the rest of the world thinks? When healthcare is a sixth of their economies, and they have to deal with reforming it, then maybe they'll have the right to speak. Until then, what they say or think is irrelevant.

 

[btmbabyboi]

how is that not relevant?

driving is defined as a privilege. if you want to exercise that privilege, you're required to pass a test and buy insurance.

I can decide to not drive, and I wouldn't have to purchase auto insurance.

what would I have to do if I decided that I didn't want to purchase health insurance? (regardless of the wisdom of that choice)

Yes, that is true, but if you chose not to drive, you wouldn't drive. You wouldn't buy insurance and no one would force you. Easy.

If however, you choose not to buy health insurance, and you need to have your gall baldder removed, the emergency rooms MUST treat you. If you didn't pay for insurance, we can't deny you care (at the same level as those who did buy it). Well, who pays the hosp? Who pays the MD? The state does and the insurance companies do. (translation YOU -through your taxes and higher premiums. It is called 'cost shifting')
So the real problem is whether we should allow people to continue to get free coverage (at the emergency room) or require people to buy at least the minimum insurance. If EVERYONE is in the "pool" then the overall risk decreases and so does all our premiums. Good for everyone.

On the other hand, the alternative is to keep things the way they are (Americans pay the MOST for health care today yet we're # 17 in longevity in industrialized countries.) or simply let the guy with the gall bladder die on the street.

Seems that enrolling everyone is the lesser evil.

 

[JB3]

Yes, that is true, but if you chose not to drive, you wouldn't drive. You wouldn't buy insurance and no one would force you. Easy.

If however, you choose not to buy health insurance, and you need to have your gall baldder removed, the emergency rooms MUST treat you. If you didn't pay for insurance, we can't deny you care (at the same level as those who did buy it). Well, who pays the hosp? Who pays the MD? The state does and the insurance companies do. (translation YOU -through your taxes and higher premiums. It is called 'cost shifting')
So the real problem is whether we should allow people to continue to get free coverage (at the emergency room) or require people to buy at least the minimum insurance. If EVERYONE is in the "pool" then the overall risk decreases and so does all our premiums. Good for everyone.

On the other hand, the alternative is to keep things the way they are (Americans pay the MOST for health care today yet we're # 17 in longevity in industrialized countries.) or simply let the guy with the gall bladder die on the street.

Seems that enrolling everyone is the lesser evil.

Except its not. It grants the federal government authority its never had, and authority that it will most certainly abuse if its allowed to stand.

 

[Kulindahr]

Seems that enrolling everyone is the lesser evil.

Except that if this is declared constitutional, there's no limit at all to what the government can decree. They could declare that fast food is bad, and shut down the industry. They could declare that plastic packaging is a waste of resources, and require everyone to use something else. If they can require citizens to buy some particular thing, they can do anything at all in the economy.

 

[thevofl]

The only ones that complain about judicial activism are conservatives.

When they agree with the judge, it's the greatest thing ever. When they don't, they want a mob to overthrow the judge.

The only time I see liberals say anything about judicial activism is when making fun of conservatives.

White House Fires Back at Ruling Declaring Obama's Health Care Law Unconstitutional, Calls Decision "Judicial Activism"

 

[btmbabyboi]

Except its not. It grants the federal government authority its never had, and authority that it will most certainly abuse if its allowed to stand.

Then it will be up to us to keep them in check. Seems counterintuititive to suppress a positive idea because it might be abused somewhere down the road... Having at least quasi-competition between insurance comanies is a WHOLE lot better than having one system (like medicare) for the entire country. If costs keep rising, we will be on a one-payer system and NOBODY wants that. Yet even that is better than having the most costly system in the world- by a factor of almost 2, but be the 17th most efficient in care. Not to mention what all this extra cost is doing to our competitiveness on the world stage. not to mention that companies are delaying hiring as long as possible- one of the reasons is skyrocketing health care. My company's plan went up 8% over last year. (raises were 1.5% HELLO??) Reason? The "Pool' we're in -13,000 lives- is too small to amortize all the costs. (Starting to sound like my Master's Thesis, sorry)

By the way, have you ever noticed that the top 5-6 auto insurance companies fight it out every night on prime time TV over price? Wouldn't that be nice to see for health insurance? Have them offer "15 minutes to save us $500/year?" Competition would be a good thing but they won't compete now because the game is rigged.

 

[btmbabyboi]

Except that if this is declared constitutional, there's no limit at all to what the government can decree. They could declare that fast food is bad, and shut down the industry. They could declare that plastic packaging is a waste of resources, and require everyone to use something else. If they can require citizens to buy some particular thing, they can do anything at all in the economy.

If you think (for ONE minute) that the "man" isn't in charge, think again. Even WAL*Mart is controlling health care with their $4.00 generic drug programs. But until recently, they didn't offer all THEIR OWN employees health insurance. Sure, you and I save $2.00 on a garden sprinkler, but the poor bastard who stocked the shelf has to go on Medicaid. Who pays for his HIV test? Who gives a shit? YOU DO cuz you pay for that test through your state taxes. (did we say that state Medicaid funds are going broke?) Then W*M will out-price the local pharmacy until they go out of business, then they'll decide they won't sell "morning after" pills. So you can't get the Rx filled for 20 miles. Hell, W*M even mandates the amount of cardboard that gets shipped with the products from their suppliers. Reason? they had to pay too much to recycle the cardboard. Less cardboard means lower prices, better environment. Good decision for everyone! (unless your old man works in the cardboard factory...) Who speaks for his Liberties?

And don't get me started with fast food. If you think Micky D or the rest are without blame, look closer. It is much easier and more profitable for them to sell a supersized meal (for an additional 1500 calories and 100 grams of fat, 2g of NACL) than it is to make a fresh salad. So what do they do? load us up on salt, fat and calories. Who pays when the heart attack rate goes up? Nobody at Mickey D, that is for DAMN sure! Leave it to the government! (translate: YOUR TAXES!!)

One thing is for sure, there aren't any easy answers. Everything is intertwined with everything else. But make no mistake, big bro is right there watching! (He's HERE, also!)

 

[JB3]

Then it will be up to us to keep them in check. Seems counterintuititive to suppress a positive idea because it might be abused somewhere down the road... Having at least quasi-competition between insurance comanies is a WHOLE lot better than having one system (like medicare) for the entire country. If costs keep rising, we will be on a one-payer system and NOBODY wants that. Yet even that is better than having the most costly system in the world- by a factor of almost 2, but be the 17th most efficient in care. Not to mention what all this extra cost is doing to our competitiveness on the world stage. not to mention that companies are delaying hiring as long as possible- one of the reasons is skyrocketing health care. My company's plan went up 8% over last year. (raises were 1.5% HELLO??) Reason? The "Pool' we're in -13,000 lives- is too small to amortize all the costs. (Starting to sound like my Master's Thesis, sorry)

By the way, have you ever noticed that the top 5-6 auto insurance companies fight it out every night on prime time TV over price? Wouldn't that be nice to see for health insurance? Have them offer "15 minutes to save us $500/year?" Competition would be a good thing but they won't compete now because the game is rigged.

It isn't some imaginary boogeyman down the road that they'll abuse it; the fact that they've included the power to regulate economic INACTIVITY is already proof of abuse. Nowhere has congress ever had this authority, and it WILL be struck down by the supreme court when it reaches them. (and I have a strong suspicion that the opinion will include a stinging rebuke of congress' blatant power grab)

 

[hotatlboi]

Except its not. It grants the federal government authority its never had, and authority that it will most certainly abuse if its allowed to stand.

No it doesn't.

They can force you to buy car insurance (ok that's state gov but still gov).

Same deal.

And don't say "you can choose to not drive". That's true but it doesn't change the analogy.

One could conceivably survive without a car if you made other arrangements. On the other hand everyone will use the health care system at some point or another. So it is the same model (requiring insurance from all who participate).

 

[Kulindahr]

So when do you expect to start having to pay a licensing fee for your body? Will you happily except getting a PIN tattooed on your body, too?

 

[JB3]

No it doesn't.

They can force you to buy car insurance (ok that's state gov but still gov).

Same deal.

And don't say "you can choose to not drive". That's true but it doesn't change the analogy.

One could conceivably survive without a car if you made other arrangements. On the other hand everyone will use the health care system at some point or another. So it is the same model (requiring insurance from all who participate).

It is not the same deal, and you know it. The analogy has never been true, because the only alternative presented in the situation constructed by the government is that death is the only reason you are not forced to buy insurance. You don't have any other option.

With car insurance, though, you do have the legitimate option of not buying one. It is a choice you make to purchase a car, knowing full well that you will be forced to buy insurance. No one chooses to be alive, because it obviously isn't a choice. We're not talking about use of the healthcare market because that isn't the issue; the car is what requires you to be insured, and the government is trying to argue that the fact that a citizen is alive requires them to purchase insurance. It is entirely possible a person could go through their life without ever using the healthcare system in a way that would cost others money. (just like the majority of car owners never use their insurance for an accident) But again, that isn't the issue. The government has NEVER had the authority to regulate economic activity, and there's no way that the supreme court will allow it to stand.

As I said above, the government has never had the power to do this, and it WILL be struck down when it reaches the supreme court.

 

[joaama]

I'm sure joaama will NEVER make that statement again...

Wow, you really are BearDaddy, you even use the smilies like he did. Congrats at being found out.

 

[JB3]

Wow, you really are BearDaddy, you even use the smilies like he did. Congrats at being found out.

How about your previous statement, about republicans being the only ones crying about judicial activism?