Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Obama's defense of his health-care plan: If people want it, it doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional   (ca.news.yahoo.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, obama, health care plans, Affordable Care Act, Neal Katyal, solicitor general, Look Like, medical system, lower courts  
•       •       •

3426 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Mar 2012 at 1:51 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



443 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-27 08:26:59 PM  
DNRTFA. Did he really say that? I will say that he did not. He would not be that silly.
 
2012-03-27 08:30:18 PM  
wait - are we talking about health care reform or the Patriot Act?
 
2012-03-27 08:47:08 PM  
It's simple. Stop treating healthcare and insurance like products, and it won't be unconstitutional. Ta-daa!

/insurance isn't really a product anyway
//it's a scam
 
2012-03-27 08:52:41 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: It's simple. Stop treating healthcare and insurance like products, and it won't be unconstitutional. Ta-daa!

/insurance isn't really a product anyway
//it's a scam


remember - taking care of the sick and poor is for weak libruls and commies. God fearing Jesus worshipping Republicans know better than to help out the sick. it just encourages 'em to get better.
 
2012-03-27 08:55:52 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: It's simple. Stop treating healthcare and insurance like products, and it won't be unconstitutional. Ta-daa!

/insurance isn't really a product anyway
//it's a scam


Kind of like a shell game.
/wonder why I don't see that played on the streets of NYC anymore
 
2012-03-27 08:56:26 PM  

Weaver95: The My Little Pony Killer: It's simple. Stop treating healthcare and insurance like products, and it won't be unconstitutional. Ta-daa!

/insurance isn't really a product anyway
//it's a scam

remember - taking care of the sick and poor is for weak libruls and commies. God fearing Jesus worshipping Republicans know better than to help out the sick. it just encourages 'em to get better.


Silly Republicans. If sick people get better, then they can get their asses back to work and stop suckling the government teat. Why, they may even be able to legitimately afford their own xboxes and Lambourghinis.
 
2012-03-27 09:01:47 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Weaver95: The My Little Pony Killer: It's simple. Stop treating healthcare and insurance like products, and it won't be unconstitutional. Ta-daa!

/insurance isn't really a product anyway
//it's a scam

remember - taking care of the sick and poor is for weak libruls and commies. God fearing Jesus worshipping Republicans know better than to help out the sick. it just encourages 'em to get better.

Silly Republicans. If sick people get better, then they can get their asses back to work and stop suckling the government teat. Why, they may even be able to legitimately afford their own xboxes and Lambourghinis.


Republican Jesus hates the weak, the sick and the poor. In the GOP philosophy, they have to crush those weaker than themselves otherwise they'll never get into heaven.
 
2012-03-27 09:49:10 PM  
29.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-03-27 10:11:30 PM  

WTFDYW: DNRTFA. Did he really say that? I will say that he did not. He would not be that silly.


"The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can't have it. And that's a really profound thing for an unelected court to say."

The My Little Pony Killer: /insurance isn't really a product anyway


The Obama administration contends that insurance is not a product, but a financial instrument, and therefore not subject to the Commerce Clause.

A previous SCOTUS decision, however, held that Congress has authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate insurance, just as they have the authority to apply regulations to goods and products U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters, 1944. (new window)

If the Commerce Clause applies to both financial instruments and products, then Congress does not have authority to mandate the purchase of either one.

They can't have it both ways.
 
2012-03-27 10:37:56 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Weaver95: The My Little Pony Killer: It's simple. Stop treating healthcare and insurance like products, and it won't be unconstitutional. Ta-daa!

/insurance isn't really a product anyway
//it's a scam

remember - taking care of the sick and poor is for weak libruls and commies. God fearing Jesus worshipping Republicans know better than to help out the sick. it just encourages 'em to get better.

Silly Republicans. If sick people get better, then they can get their asses back to work and stop suckling the government teat. Why, they may even be able to legitimately afford their own xboxes and Lambourghinis.


But if they just die, it eases the burden on everyone

/and makes more room to expand parking lots
 
2012-03-27 10:50:07 PM  

Sensei Can You See: The Obama administration contends that insurance is not a product, but a financial instrument, and therefore not subject to the Commerce Clause.


I don't think that is what they are contending at all. It is a financial instrument, yes, but the conclusion they draw from that is that it is inextricably linked to the health services market. Scalito (I get them confused) argued that health services and health insurance are two separate markets; virtually everyone participates in the first, but not everyone participates in the second (therefore, making them buy insurance is forcing them to participate in a market against their will). The administration is arguing that this distinction is not valid, since insurance is merely a means of paying for health services, not a product one buys for its own sake.

/single payer would have avoided this crap and is better anyway
// I predict a 6-3 ruling upholding the law, with Roberts writing the opinion
 
2012-03-27 10:53:36 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: The My Little Pony Killer: Weaver95: The My Little Pony Killer: It's simple. Stop treating healthcare and insurance like products, and it won't be unconstitutional. Ta-daa!

/insurance isn't really a product anyway
//it's a scam

remember - taking care of the sick and poor is for weak libruls and commies. God fearing Jesus worshipping Republicans know better than to help out the sick. it just encourages 'em to get better.

Silly Republicans. If sick people get better, then they can get their asses back to work and stop suckling the government teat. Why, they may even be able to legitimately afford their own xboxes and Lambourghinis.

But if they just die, it eases the burden on everyone

/and makes more room to expand parking lots


But if they die, then that means a system based on the idea of perpetual growth is doomed!
 
2012-03-27 11:48:14 PM  
So has Clarence Thomas said anything at all?
 
2012-03-27 11:50:05 PM  

skinnycatullus: Sensei Can You See: The Obama administration contends that insurance is not a product, but a financial instrument, and therefore not subject to the Commerce Clause.

I don't think that is what they are contending at all.


"A means of paying for [whatever]" is meaningless in a court of law. If insurance is not a product, you can't go to court and testify that it's "a way to pay for a product."

That may a semantic argument best settled by people smarter than me, but the bottom line is that SCOTUS declared back in 1940 that the Commerce Clause applies to insurance, so the argument that it doesn't apply has, to put it mildly, a few problems.
 
2012-03-27 11:56:05 PM  

Sensei Can You See: the argument that it doesn't apply


Who made the argument that it doesn't apply? And why would they? The commerce clause gives the Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce, which is what the ACA does.
 
2012-03-27 11:59:30 PM  
Everyone must pay for a federally-mandated health club membership and exercise at least one hour every morning, or be fined for non-compliance.

Please explain how mandatory health club membership laws would be different than mandatory health insurance policy laws?

We're not talking about healthcare - - we're talking about buying consumer products sold by companies who will now have compulsory customers, thanks to the overreach of the federal government. This is NOT solving healthcare issues - - this is the health insurance industry winning the revenue lottery.
 
2012-03-28 12:05:36 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [29.media.tumblr.com image 301x392]


I saw a CNN one where it was near even. Repeal all + repeal only the individual mandate vs. leave it intact. Course internet polls are pretty stupid.
 
2012-03-28 12:12:43 AM  

Weaver95: wait - are we talking about health care reform or the Patriot Act?


Sounds like something you'd hear during prohibition.
 
2012-03-28 12:24:23 AM  

Mentat: So has Clarence Thomas said anything at all?


No

/he hasn't been told what to say yet
 
2012-03-28 12:27:57 AM  

skinnycatullus: /single payer would have avoided this crap and is better anyway
// I predict a 6-3 ruling upholding the law, with Roberts writing the opinion


Single payer would have been a better way, IMHO, however that would never have gotten through.

The argument is that they are forcing people to buy insurance. This is not true. You either buy insurance or you pay the tax. The major point is that Health Care is actually a national economic reality.
 
2012-03-28 12:33:29 AM  
Q:) What is at stake in this hearing?

A:) If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn't just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: 'Look, we've got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can't have it. And that's a really profound thing for an unelected court to say.

Point by point Mr. Solicitor:

1) We are not a "Democracy" we are a Constitutional Republic

2) Yes the Supreme court can take any piece or part of a piece of legislation and deem it unconstitutional. Its their job as defined by the constitution. Yes they do have the power. They have the scarey scarey power and neither you or anyone else can overrule them.

3) Its also their job to ignore popular opinion. This is why they are appointed and not elected.

4) If 95%(LOL) of the people want this legislation and the Supreme's deem it unconstitutional then do the legal thing, amend the constitution..
 
2012-03-28 12:52:03 AM  
How would Obama know what's constitutional? It's not like he's a constitutional law professor at Harvard as opposed to, say, a real intellectual like Newt Gingrich.
 
2012-03-28 01:03:18 AM  
Q:) Experts say that this Supreme Court challenge is historic. Why so?

Isn't it also historic because it's extremely unusual for any court, much less the Supreme Court, to hear a case for a charge, fee or tax when it hasn't actually been applied yet?
 
2012-03-28 01:18:16 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Single payer would have been a better way, IMHO, however that would never have gotten through.


Instead we get this piece of sh*t and Medicare Part D. We could save billions if we just do single payer. Tens of billions, trillions over the years. No, we have to accept a compromise.

Christ even the supporters aren't thrilled with the bill because they know it's a teeny tiny start compared to what we need to do. Meh, better than nothing.

The one part that drives me absolutely insane about is how much relief single-payer would give to corporate America. It would take the health care burden off their shoulders and save them a fortune. They could hire more people, but I'm sure they would do share buybacks and executive compensation packages. But, they would have more money to throw around the board room. They should be championing single-payer from the rooftops.
 
2012-03-28 01:51:58 AM  

Sensei Can You See: "The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can't have it. And that's a really profound thing for an unelected court to say."


Though it's Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, not the President.

Contrariwise, if it was 95%, the solution would be a lot simpler: amend the Constitution. As is, the problem is trickier.

Darth_Lukecash: Single payer would have been a better way, IMHO, however that would never have gotten through.


Though there's the notion the SCOTUS striking down the mandate might help with the impetus.
Probably adds a solid 20 years to the timeline, though.
 
2012-03-28 01:56:35 AM  
We'll get single payer only when there's no other choice.

/as in "Medicare'll go bankrupt if we don't".
 
2012-03-28 01:58:19 AM  

WTFDYW: DNRTFA. Did he really say that? I will say that he did not. He would not be that silly.


He didn't. His attorney did, which is scary. Anyone who took Con Law knows that it doesn't matter if 100% of the public wants something; if it's unconstitutional, the Court may declare it so.

There was a time when the majority of Americans thought "separate but equal" was acceptable policy, but that didn't make it constitutional.
 
2012-03-28 02:01:42 AM  

smells_like_meat: Q:) What is at stake in this hearing?

A:) If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn't just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: 'Look, we've got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can't have it. And that's a really profound thing for an unelected court to say.

Point by point Mr. Solicitor:

1) We are not a "Democracy" we are a Constitutional Republic

2) Yes the Supreme court can take any piece or part of a piece of legislation and deem it unconstitutional. Its their job as defined by the constitution. Yes they do have the power. They have the scarey scarey power and neither you or anyone else can overrule them.

3) Its also their job to ignore popular opinion. This is why they are appointed and not elected.

4) If 95%(LOL) of the people want this legislation and the Supreme's deem it unconstitutional then do the legal thing, amend the constitution..


mantenerse imparcial hermano
 
2012-03-28 02:02:36 AM  
Men. After Citizens United I don't care if Obama shiats on the Supreme Court.
 
2012-03-28 02:05:22 AM  

Weaver95: The My Little Pony Killer: It's simple. Stop treating healthcare and insurance like products, and it won't be unconstitutional. Ta-daa!

/insurance isn't really a product anyway
//it's a scam

remember - taking care of the sick and poor is for weak libruls and commies. God fearing Jesus worshipping Republicans know better than to help out the sick. it just encourages 'em to get better.


The irony is that the part they are challenging, the universal mandate, is not really even handing out benefits to freeloaders. Freeloaders get taken care of already under the current system (ok, not well taken care of, but expensively and inefficiently taken care of).

The universal mandate just tries to get them to pay into the system, i.e. stop freeloading.
 
2012-03-28 02:08:26 AM  
I hate this stupid country and it's retarded people. After the health care insurance industry wins this stupid debate I want them to "privatize" food, water, and air in the same way they do health care.
 
2012-03-28 02:10:15 AM  
What the fark ever. All it means is that all of us pay for the elderly folk who come to my ED via ambulance for "sinus drainage". Or the woman whose boyfriend didn't believe she was pregnant, thought she was faking a pregnancy test, so she called 911 and said she was having chest pains and "might be pregnant". Or the lady who comes in with chronic back pain but is strangely allergic to tylenol, ibuprofen, toradol, zofran, reglan, phenergan, codeine, morphine, vicodin- but strangely not dilaudid! Oh, no, you all get to help pay for them, because they've got no skin in the game, and let's be honest, why should they? They know we'll all be paying for their free care.

See, some of ya'll think the people walking into the ED thing is rare, for serious things only. Pfft! If the 80-year old calls 911 for sinus drainage, and they refuse to bring them or we refuse to see 'em, promise you that's the day they'll have a heart attack. Totally unrelated to their complaint, and we might not've caught it or they might not have been experiencing any symptoms when we saw them, but there's no way in fark we're going to risk that lawsuit to save a couple bucks. Besides, like I said, the federal government ends up paying it, or everyone else does with insurance with increased costs.

I still can't believe that The Heritage Foundation came up with this idea.
 
2012-03-28 02:17:14 AM  
You could no more solve the issue of the uninsured with an individual mandate than you could cure homelessness by ordering people to buy a home.
 
2012-03-28 02:19:39 AM  
So their argument is the federal government can't tell me what I have to buy, yet they also find it constitutional to tell me what I can't buy (harmless, delicious narcotics).
 
2012-03-28 02:21:50 AM  

Mentat: So has Clarence Thomas said anything at all?


"Harumph!"
 
2012-03-28 02:22:07 AM  

WTFDYW: DNRTFA. Did he really say that? I will say that he did not. He would not be that silly.


He didn't say it. The guy being interviewed in this article is his US Solicitor General who says that the Supreme Court wouldn't reject the health care plan because lots of people want it. Even though the American people are more 50/50 than what he basically calls 95/5, that wasn't even Obama as the headline implies.
 
2012-03-28 02:22:07 AM  

sirgrim: So their argument is the federal government can't tell me what I have to buy, yet they also find it constitutional to tell me what I can't buy (harmless, delicious narcotics).


You know that that ability has been around his the constitution has been ratified correct?

When British goods were legally forbidden from import, similar French wares were acceptable. Oh the horror!
 
2012-03-28 02:22:43 AM  

DarthBrooks: Everyone must pay for a federally-mandated health club membership and exercise at least one hour every morning, or be fined for non-compliance.

Please explain how mandatory health club membership laws would be different than mandatory health insurance policy laws?

We're not talking about healthcare - - we're talking about buying consumer products sold by companies who will now have compulsory customers, thanks to the overreach of the federal government. This is NOT solving healthcare issues - - this is the health insurance industry winning the revenue lottery.


People have alternatives to buying a membership in a health club to work out and be healthier. They can walk on trails. They can ride a bike. They can do Tae Bo videos at home. For almost the entire population of the country, there is no workable alternative to having health insurance to pay for health care.
 
2012-03-28 02:23:00 AM  
The challengers to the reform say that never before has the government forced people to buy a product. We're not forcing you to buy a product. Health care is something all Americans consume, and you don't know when you're going to consume it. You could get struck by a bus, you could have a heart attack and the like.

Like you could get health care without insurance. Like so you do not need insurance to get treatment so like you as an american do not have to consume insurance.
 
2012-03-28 02:29:48 AM  
THIS laws sucks dicks!
 
2012-03-28 02:37:45 AM  

pippi longstocking: I hate this stupid country and it's retarded people. After the health care insurance industry wins this stupid debate I want them to "privatize" food, water, and air in the same way they do health care.


They already privatized water.. (glances at a case of water bottles)
 
2012-03-28 02:42:18 AM  
If something that causes no harm and benefits many is unconstitutional, then our constitution is broken and needs to be changed.
 
2012-03-28 02:44:54 AM  
I think the individual mandate part is the only part that can be repealed.

However, after Citizens United, nothing is certain.
This comes down to forcing people to support health insurance companies vs Anti-Obama Tea-Bagger sentiment.

What is SCOTUS going to do?
 
2012-03-28 02:47:23 AM  

NewportBarGuy: The one part that drives me absolutely insane about is how much relief single-payer would give to corporate America. It would take the health care burden off their shoulders and save them a fortune. They could hire more people, but I'm sure they would do share buybacks and executive compensation packages. But, they would have more money to throw around the board room. They should be championing single-payer from the rooftops.


As a Canadian who enjoys the wealth influx as a result of the outsourcing of highly skilled jobs like software development to our country for this exact reason, STFU. ;)

/ but that's really the only proof you need. Haul up EA, Activision, to testify in a Congressional hearing, and ask them why they operate studios in nearly every major Canadian city.
 
2012-03-28 02:48:40 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: This comes down to forcing people to support health insurance companies vs Anti-Obama Tea-Bagger sentiment.


Forcing people to support health insurance companies, and forcing health insurance companies to support people. That part is important.
 
2012-03-28 02:48:45 AM  
As an Australian, my opinion of Obama would increase dramatically if he had said that modern necessity took precedence over the Constitution. The apocryphal Bush quote "it's just a piece of paper" is the closest he ever came to voicing a profound truth. To cling to a document written in 1787 as the sole guiding voice in civic life seems no less surreal to me than slavish adherence to the Old Testament, and in a few more generations, it'll also probably be no less anachronistic.

I get and appreciate that the US need a stable foundation for its legal system, and respecting and preserving the Constitution makes sense in that context. It's those who see no problem with it as the first and final point of social authority that I can't understand.
 
2012-03-28 02:48:56 AM  

Britney Spear's Speculum: I think the individual mandate part is the only part that can be repealed.

However, after Citizens United, nothing is certain.
This comes down to forcing people to support health insurance companies vs Anti-Obama Tea-Bagger sentiment.

What is SCOTUS going to do?


They could rule that Medicare must be extended to all Americans under the equal-protection clause.
 
2012-03-28 02:52:45 AM  

Alphax: Britney Spear's Speculum: This comes down to forcing people to support health insurance companies vs Anti-Obama Tea-Bagger sentiment.

Forcing people to support health insurance companies, and forcing health insurance companies to support people. That part is important.


Don't get me wrong, I'm looking at this from Scalia's perspective. What you point out is very important too.

Trolljegeren: They could rule that Medicare must be extended to all Americans under the equal-protection clause.


And this would be epic. I'm hoping for this.
 
2012-03-28 02:59:54 AM  
Bah! Know what my insurance is? Denial. I can't afford to miss work by getting sick/injured, and I still have to pay for it? Someone needs to start a $20/month 'minimum coverage' plan. Call it Safe Ankle, or something.

/Damn you, Taxbongo!
//I'm being unreasonable and trollish above, but I really would dial 1-800-SAFE-ANKL if it existed.
 
2012-03-28 03:06:10 AM  

skepticultist: If something that causes no harm and benefits many is unconstitutional, then our constitution is broken and needs to be changed.


The consitution is there to provide liberty, freedom and private property to the people. It grants you the right to make your own damn decisions and pay the consequences for those decisions. Forcing people to buy a product (health insurance) is about as wrong as you can get. If you sacrafice your freedoms for security, you don't deserve freedom at all.

But it seems Republicans (Patriot Act) and Democrats (Health Care Mandate) can't handle freedom because they are constantly trying to take it away from us.
 
Displayed 50 of 443 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report