• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

SCOTUS' Decision on ObamaCare

What is the most likely SCOTUS outcome on ObamaCare?

  • They do nothing and leave the entire law intact.

    Votes: 23 21.3%

  • They sever the mandate but leave most other parts alone.

    Votes: 32 29.6%

  • They strike down the entire act.

    Votes: 36 33.3%

  • Planet X: I like frogs.

    Votes: 24 22.2%
  • Total voters
    108
mhaze said:
There's this little voice whispering to me that if the AHC law and it's interpretation of the Commerce Clause is allowed to stand, then EVERY lobbyist in District of Criminals is going to be pushing previously unheard of amounts of money to get his product or services shoved down our throats thru an earmark attached to some bill in a 2000 page heap.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised that the little voice is not completely drowned out by the screaming that is currently going on doing exactly what you fear. Where have you been? Currently lobbying expenditures in DC alone amount to about $3.5 Billion dollars. There are about 75 registered lobbyists for every congresscritter. Who knows how many unregistered lobbyists are practicing their trade.

Most of these expenditures are by corporations. If they didn't think they were getting their money's worth, they wouldn't be wasting the money. They are getting a HUGE return on investment.

So what in the world makes you think if ACA stands, anything will change?

Sam.I.Am said:
Yeah, that would just be too tempting to do for just about anyone selling a product or service. I mean from a business perspective who wouldn't want a captive consumer base?
Click to expand...
See above. From a business perspective, regulations can limit competition and guarantee markets. It is not a future threat, it is a real concern now. I cannot see that retaining ACA will make a damn bit of difference.
 
Unabogie said:
The government forces me to have children and assesses a fine if I don't. Oh, wait. No. It gives me a tax credit if I do and none if I don't.

Why am I being forced into the diaper market against my will?
Click to expand...
If you think a tax credit makes having a baby a profit-making operation, then I have some land to sell you.
 
SezMe said:
I'm surprised that the little voice is not completely drowned out by the screaming that is currently going on doing exactly what you fear. Where have you been? Currently lobbying expenditures in DC alone amount to about $3.5 Billion dollars. There are about 75 registered lobbyists for every congresscritter. Who knows how many unregistered lobbyists are practicing their trade.

Most of these expenditures are by corporations. If they didn't think they were getting their money's worth, they wouldn't be wasting the money. They are getting a HUGE return on investment.

So what in the world makes you think if ACA stands, anything will change?


See above. From a business perspective, regulations can limit competition and guarantee markets. It is not a future threat, it is a real concern now. I cannot see that retaining ACA will make a damn bit of difference.
Click to expand...

I cannot think of anything right now that mandates that everyone must purchase a product or service from a private entity no matter what under penalty of law if you don't. Some people like to use automobile insurance as an example but that's a false comparison. You do not have to own a car therefore you do not have to buy automobile insurance if you don't have a car. You also don't have to buy automobile insurance if you do own a car but never drive it on public roads. I live in an area with adequate public transit so I don't need or own a car nor do I have automobile insurance. The state is not going to be knocking on my door telling me to buy an Allstate minimum policy or they will forcibly take the money for it out of my paycheck or raid my savings account without my permission.

This law will do exactly that. Buy (X) product or the federal government will take the money away from you anyway. Opening that door is not a good idea in my opinion.

I am not against the idea of UHC but I don't think that this is the way to do it. The thing is that if we did do it the way that other countries have done it the insurance companies will lose a ton of revenue and the jobs that come with it.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
I cannot think of anything right now that mandates that everyone must purchase a product or service from a private entity no matter what under penalty of law if you don't. Some people like to use automobile insurance as an example but that's a false comparison.
Click to expand...
I think it is a valid comparison. The only difference is that everyone, sooner or later, will need health care while, as you point out, a very few people can get by without driving a car. But it seems to me that that makes government involvement more important, not less.


Sam.I.Am said:
I am not against the idea of UHC but I don't think that this is the way to do it. The thing is that if we did do it the way that other countries have done it the insurance companies will lose a ton of revenue and the jobs that come with it.
Click to expand...
From the point of view of national well being, which is more important, a profitable health insurance industry or a healthy populace? I just don't see the former as being a national priority.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
....But if we switch to UHC, it’s a zero sum game. ....
Click to expand...
Are you kidding? That's why Social Security, medicare have ballooned out of control, compared to their initial estimates.

No government program that can be dipped into by politicians to buy votes one way or another is a zero sum game. Except in the sense that zero is the sum YOU have left in the game.
 
I don't know if there was anyone really smarter regarding this poll, but rather it just reflected people's hopes.
 
The poll was fixed! Where was the entry for "They uphold much of the law, but strike the withholding of Medicaid from noncompliant States"? Thats' what I would have voted for had it been an option. Really! :)
 
Dessi said:
People who say they're going to Canada due to health care ruling. Because surely none of them like socialized medicine, right?
Click to expand...

You have GOT to be Freak'n kidding me....

W

T

F

is wrong with people. 5 minutes of research would show them what is wrong with their thinking and another 10 minutes would show them why they don't really need to be all up in arms about this in the first place.

It's not the end of the world even if you oppose the bill.
 
Dessi said:
People who say they're going to Canada due to health care ruling. Because surely none of them like socialized medicine, right?
Click to expand...


43133dbf630121f2aee169a3f470dbe8.jpg


Let them go to Canada
 
Last edited:
Dessi said:
People who say they're going to Canada due to health care ruling. Because surely none of them like socialized medicine, right?
Click to expand...

I just learned that Rush Limbaugh had said he would leave the U.S. if the healthcare bill passed.

There's a big Catch-22 though: I'd be happy if Rush were to stick to his word and leave the country because he's such a douche, but because he's such a douche, he won't stick to his word and leave the country. If he weren't a douche, and were the kind of person who sticks to his word, then I probably wouldn't want him to leave the country. . . .

My only request is that if he leaves, he take his statue with him.
 
I did that on purpose so pgwenthold could see the code he couldn't be arsed to look up, you dingbat!

And the pun was lousy.

:hb:

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom