US Supreme Court Upholds the entire PPACA law by a 5-4 decision

[croat]

Tweet

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/how-will-supreme-court-rule-on-health-care-law/

And yes, that includes the individual mandate.

[DocM]

I... did not see that one coming. Nice job, Roberts.

[croat]

Well it was known they would refuse it based on the commerce clause, however what was unexpected was to allow it as a tax on every able American. That decision is kind of scary as now the Supreme Court basically ruled that congress's ability to tax is basically unlimited. Also as of today it is now a federal criminal offense to not buy health insurance.

[DocM]

Meh.
If any outcome was expected, it was that the mandate would be struck down and the rest would survive mostly intact.
Reducing this to "scary" taxes and federal offenses is intellectually lazy. I agree it is something to keep an eye on, fine, but that is not by any means the main result of this decision.

[DocM]

http://affordablecarecat.com/

[croat]

I loathe cats.

Yes - the expected outcome was that the mandate would be struck down, and it was not. It's funny you say that its something to keep an eye on and that its not the result of this decision, however its complete different when the court rules against for something you don't agree with like the Citizens United decision.

[DocM]

trololololo

[croat]

I am always wary of SC rulings (despite my approval or disapproval) as there is always a group/company/etc out there to exploit its decision. Take example of the stolen valor act that they also shot down this week - I am totally against it - they basically said you can lie to anyone about having a military career, receiving a purple heart, etc. However it was ruled the way it was due to the 1st amendment - and as much as I disagree its probably better that it was ruled the way it is. Folks will still get charged for falsifying information in most circumstances however by simply stating that someone has received the a military medal or honor simply to say it - is a protected right.

[DocM]

When did I even mention Citizens United, anyways? But since you brought it up, what good has come from that?

[croat]

I never once said you mentioned citizens united, I was simply stating that nearly every single supreme court ruling holds precedent over something else either in the past or the future. The implications of any ruling are unknown as to what they will affect from the past to the future. As I said with citizens united, since that has been ruled in favor its opened the floodgates on litigation of the past to newly created companies based off of the decision, etc.

Also to you, nothing good has come from the citizens united ruling - however for millions of folks around the US in their eyes it has been good for them as it gave them and their interests a huge foothold on politics and elections since. Just because you view it as no good evil don't mean that the remaining 99.9999999999% of the nation feels the same way.

[DocM]

Point being, you're comparing national healthcare to citizens united. I suspect you know how disingenuous this is, that they are not alike other than having been controversial S.C. decisions.
You like to paint everything greyscale, so everybody seems equally right, and nothing is better than anything else, and pointless bickering can continue unabated. Whatever floats yr boat.

[croat]

My point was not to the healthcare decision, or the citizens united decision, or anything else - it was a general point that you are evading. Yes you are obviously in overwhelming support of this decision thus anything negative associated to this ruling or any future implications based on the ruling you are willing to simply dismiss as nonsense/fear-mongering/etc. However when it comes to something else that you are not in agreement with (ie: citizens united) you take another stance on the rulings implications going forward.

No I don't paint everything grey scale however I don't polarize every subject as its us versus them. I don't view those that are against this healthcare law as the enemy and all of their viewpoints as totally insane but rather welcome them as well as those in favor as part of a greater debate. The main problem with our system is how they have brainwashed a good chunk of America into holding their opinions and positions as #1 and shutting all others out and deeming them poisonous thus leading to this current segmented environment where we remain divided with no chance of working together for a greater good.

But I guess if polarization and divisiveness floats your boat .....

[DocM]

Citizens United in the context of this conversation is a red herring you keep using to paint me as some left-wing nut, when I didn't even offer an opinion on it.
You are as guilty as anybody on polarization, re-read this thread.
It's a divisive world we live in, because people will believe whatever is convenient for them instead of what is true. If you wanted to debate the finer points of the good and bad of healthcare, you would have mentioned the good.

[croat]

Not trying to paint you as anything and the only reason I used it as its a recent ruling that had visible repercussions as well as a follow up ruling which was struck down based on the previous - has nothing to do with you. And I did re-read the thread and no where did I take a polarized position on anything.

I am still in the air with this entire debate however - as I am for some of the parts of the legislation but not others, and things on paper are usually far different when actually implemented. As it stands now I am personally going to be non affected by this due to my situation - but others will be greatly impacted. Also this is a far cry from the Single Payer system that I would prefer over this shallow attempt (which for some strange reason those to the right of the isle keep thinking it is).

[DocM]

Even though we are just now getting back on topic I'd like to address a few earlier comments-

"Also to you, nothing good has come from the citizens united ruling - however for millions of folks around the US in their eyes it has been good for them as it gave them and their interests a huge foothold on politics and elections since. Just because you view it as no good evil don't mean that the remaining 99.9999999999% of the nation feels the same way."
Well, you have agreed that it is not a good decision. Would you also agree that these people are ignorant of its effects on democratic process? Or if not ignorant, then they are malicious towards it? I don't see everybody else's viewpoint as equally valid if they are stupid or evil. Healthcare has nuance, Citizens United does not.

"you are obviously in overwhelming support of this decision thus anything negative associated to this ruling or any future implications based on the ruling you are willing to simply dismiss as nonsense/fear-mongering/etc."
Lies. My entire point has been that you should have started with "I am still in the air with this entire debate"  instead of just getting to that now. By leading off with how scary national healthcare is for democracy, you were acting biased against something which also has huge positive effects for people. It's kind of like saying that circuses are scary because you are afraid of clowns... I recognized your point, but that wasn't good enough for you.

To the point, I think that civil discourse is indeed a huge problem. But when you look at the goals of both sides of the isle, they are so different that it is nearly impossible to imagine a scenario of national reconciliation. Each side is guilty- do I think each side is equally guilty? No, and I think that to say they are is a popular new way to claim neutrality, but neutrality is not always representative of reality.