As much as it sickens me, I think it will pass SCOTUS...... the end game sought after isn't medical insurance, or any of the reasons debated adnasium by the media, the end game is forced participation into government design. The courts questions were accurate "where does it (federal overreach) all end?" Knowing the abyss and consequences of their actions they will uphold Obamacare. And while everyone on the left celebrates,.... the last flicker of individual freedom will be snuffed out as the government will have no barriers to check or balance themselves. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I hope you are right; however, Kennedy later also said the following: âI think it is true that, if most questions in life are matters of degree,â it could be that in the markets for health insurance and for the health care for which insurance was the method of payment âthe young person who is uninsured is uniquely proximately very close to affecting the rates of insurance and the costs of providing medical care in a way that is not true in other industries. Thatâs my concern in the case.â
I heard an excerpt of a statement by Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the news tonight. She sounds like she's suffering from senility.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HFmursxum1g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aYHSdRRLb7U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vk6vpR1WhKM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
March 27, 2012 Anti-Obamacare lawyer makes Romney's argument by Joel Gehrke If the Supreme Court overturns the individual mandate based on the theory argued by Paul Clement, the attorney representing the 26 states that filed lawsuits against Obamacare, Mitt Romney's presidential campaign could get a big boost from the ruling. Clement told the court, just as Romney has told Republican primary voters, that states have the power to enact individual mandates wheras the federal government has no such authority. "I do think the States could pass this mandate," Clement said today in response to a question from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "[T]he States can do it because they have a police power, and that is a fundamental difference between the States on the one hand and the limited, enumerated Federal Government on the other." Romney has argued throughout the presidential primary that Massachusetts has the ability, under the 10th Amendment, to enact an individual mandate for health insurance. Democrats prepping for the general election have attacked Romney for supporting the individual mandate in his state while opposing President Obama's mandate. If the Supreme Court agrees that states can enact mandates, but rules that Obama's mandate is an unconstitutional infringement on individual liberty, then Romney will have a solid rebuttal. http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...bamacare-lawyer-makes-romneys-argument/449591
HAHAHAHAHA Nice trading advice, the Insurers skyrocketed when Obamacare was passed because of the individual mandate. This might be one of the dumbest things i have read on this site. You are on the complete opposite side of reality. If you think the mandate is going to be struck down, the way to go is to be short the insurers, this is almost as good as your "housing rolling along" advice. Dont take my word for it though, listen to Dylan Ratigan, clubbing the shit out of Wasserman-Schultz over it, when it originally passed. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/j8R8baHPr2E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I would like to understand the issue of Obamacare being so widely unpopular from the perspective of a non-American and coming from a nation which has universal health care. I fully admit that I only have a superficial following of US politics. My understanding from the media here and research online is that the main opposition points is that: 1)It forces people to get coverage, and is seen as unconstitutional. 2)It increases the money spent by individuals on healthcare. From my perspective, it doesn't make sense not to have universal healthcare or something approaching that. For those that can easily pay medical costs themselves, the increase in premium will be negligeble anyways. But for those who cannot find the means to pay, this would appear to be a lifesaver. I fail to understand why anyone would choose to not be covered under health insurance anyways. From my understanding, the legislation basically forces people to get coverage, although subsidized, from private healthcare institutions and for that I agree is a huge flaw. Over here the coverage is through the government adminstered institutions rather, and that would probably make more sense. But perhaps the social cost to not giving people this standard of living is greater than the deficit in spending by the plan? Please shed some light and correct me where wrong.