View Full Version : Justices Did A Better Job Defending 'Obamacare'

03-28-2012, 02:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Obama administration’s top legal advocate was pilloried Tuesday for offering a less-than-eloquent constitutional defense of the health care reform law’s individual mandate — the provision at the heart of the challenge to “Obamacare.” Thankfully for supporters of the law, some of the sharpest legal minds in the country unintentionally articulated his case better than he did — the justices themselves. Liberal-leaning justices on the court each stepped in at various points to suggest arguments for the mandate’s legitimacy.

Here are the four best arguments they made — or at least hinted at — that could sway their skeptical colleagues. </div></div>

link (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/03/liberal-justices-pick-up-obama-lawyers-slack-in-defense-of-mandate.php?ref=fpnewsfeed)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Justice Elena Kagan, herself a former solicitor general, called out the GOP lawyer Paul Clement’s contention that not everyone is in the health insurance market and that the government wants to force them into it.

“Well, doesn’t that seem a little bit, Mr. Clement, cutting the bologna thin?” she said. “I mean, health insurance exists only for the purpose of financing health care. The two are inextricably interlinked. We don’t get insurance so that we can stare at our insurance certificate. We get it so that we can go and access health care.”

When Verrilli began invoking hypotheticals about commerce power, Kagan stepped in with a rhetorical question about why requiring the purchase of insurance is ultimately about broad well-being as opposed to some people subsidizing others.

“And this is especially true, isn’t it, General Verrilli, because in this context, <u>the subsidizers eventually become the subsidized?”</u> she asked.

Verrilli sounded thankful: “Well, that was the point I was trying to make, Justice Kagan.” </div></div>


03-28-2012, 07:05 AM
Wow, Kagan's argument is a giant fail. LOL, seems you and your "author" are jumping at anything with little regard to it actually making any sense. To think there are not plenty of people out there with NO desire whatsoever to purchase life insurance is foolish. Many people make the non-financial decision to not purchase things all the time. This is not limited to health insurance.

This is actually a new tax, a new burden on the poor. Those that could not afford insurance in the first place are now going to be forced to buy it. LOL, Obama started out saying he was going to provide insurance for every American and the idiots jumped up and clapped. Little did they know he was going to be forcing it down their throats. Sorry you can't afford your mortgage, car payment or car insurance. Just make sure those HC payments keep going in or we will come looking for you.


03-28-2012, 02:39 PM
Actually it's a de facto tax on the lower middle class and young.

The welfare class already has state coverage.

Furthermore, had the congress possessed the testicular/ovarian fortitude to actually make it an official tax ... there would be nothing to really contest.

03-28-2012, 04:32 PM
That last is quite true. There would be no doubt that had the Congress imposed a tax on everyone of the size of the penalty amount, and then as policy, rebated that for a zero net charge to those persons who got the approved insurance, there would be no (real) Constitutional objection.

But question, then. Since the sole difference would seem to be semantical, not much of a difference in reality, why do you think the one is legitimate, but the other one, a horrible example of tyranny and government run amok? Same outcome, same out of pocket difference to everyone, no real difference but the words used.

Is the Constitution so fragile a document that it is shattered, and the compact it represents of the people for their self-government, trashed, when for political selling reasons (I believe), the taxation version (wholly legitimate, as is near-universally agreed) is couched in the language of a penalty instead? Shouldn't we applaud the more true version that this represents, that there is no tax that we are rebating to zero for the right behavior, but rather a penalty for not exhibiting the right behavior (meaning getting an insurance plan)?

03-29-2012, 12:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To think there are not plenty of people out there with NO desire whatsoever to purchase life insurance is foolish. </div></div>

Do you know who said this in 2005?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some aspect of the working poor has to involve transfer of finances. To ask people in the lowest paying jobs to bear the full burden of their health insurance is just irrational, it’s not going to happen…One of my conclusions in the last six years, funding the Center for Health Transformation, and looking at what our system is, <u>unless you have 100 percent coverage, you can’t have the right preventive care and you can’t have a rational system.</u> [...]

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>If I see someone who’s earning over $50,000 a year, <u>who has made the calculated decision not to buy health insurance. I’m looking at someone who’s absolutely as irresponsible as anybody who is ever on welfare</u>….I’m actually in favor of saying, <u>whatever the appropriate income is, you ought to either have health insurance, or you ought to post a bond.</u> But we have no room in this society to have a free rider approach if you’re well off economically to say we’ll cheat our neighbors. </span> </div></div>

Some nutjob Dem maybe?

It was <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Newt Gingrich !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</span>

Lets say a 45 year old has never bought HC insurance. Never needed it. Now, diagnosed with cancer thinks, "$hit, this might cost a lot, better get me some insurance quick."

HC company says, "You have cancer, this might cost a lot. We will insure you but it will cost you $100,000 a year."

Guy can't pay. What happens?

9 months later he is rushed to hospital. After 6 months in intensive care and two operations, he dies. Cost, 3 million dollars.

That,s your system?

The result is that the guy losses his life, when he could have lived if his cancer had been treated straight away and the tax payer gets stiffed for 3 M.

When this was a Republican idea, it was all about responsibility and accountability. Just recently some GOPers were proposing that EVERYBODY should pay tax because 'they need to have some skin in the game'. This is the same argument that Newt uses.

This whole challenge to the ACA is still about Obama ie politics.


03-29-2012, 02:25 AM
If your point was that Kagan is a tool of the regime with either no knowledge of, or no desire to follow, the COTUS ... I concur.

03-29-2012, 02:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"But you don’t want everyone saying, `I’m going to sit back until I get sick and then go buy insurance.’ That doesn’t make sense. But you have to find rules that get people in that are playing by the rules." </div></div>

Romney, this week!


03-29-2012, 02:42 AM
No its wasn't, try again.


03-29-2012, 02:46 AM
Just for the record.

Millions choose not to have HC insurance but later they need HC but can't afford it. The tax payer and the guy who has had HC insurance all his life should pick up the bill?

Good to know. Sounds like Socialism to me.


03-29-2012, 03:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is actually a new tax, a new burden on the poor. </div></div>

Do you call access to HC a burden?

Some call it a Human right!


You and Willard have no idea.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I took her to a supermarket
I don't know why but I had to start it somewhere, so it started there.
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>I said pretend you've got no money, she just laughed and said oh you're so funny.
I said yeah? Well I can't see anyone else smiling in here.</span>
Are you sure you want to live like common people
You want to see whatever common people see
You want to sleep with common people,
you want to sleep with common people like me.
But she didn't understand, she just smiled and held my hand.
Rent a flat above a shop, cut your hair and get a job.
Smoke some fags and play some pool, pretend you never went to school.
But still you'll never get it right
'cos when you're laid in bed at night watching roaches climb the wall
If you call your Dad he could stop it all.
You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view, and dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do. </div></div>

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuTMWgOduFM&ob=av2n)

03-29-2012, 09:20 AM
There are plenty of people who choose to go without HC coverage and it has nothing to do with hardships or ability to pay. This nullifies Kagan's response. She tries to use an argument that doesn't even make sense to include all people and she is flat out wrong.


03-29-2012, 09:23 AM
Doesn't matter if it makes sense or not. Romney is a wolf in sheeps clothing if you are a Republican. Have seen anyone on this site state they are in favor of Romney? Why would you use him as an example of someone from the Right agreeing with Kagan's preposterous statement? Do you enjoy being wrong all the time? We used to live in a free country where your decision counts. That is quickly eroding away.


04-02-2012, 06:18 AM
How many do you think actually CHOOSE to be uninsured?
How many can't get insurance?

Why does Mitt Romney have insurance? He doesn't need it!


04-02-2012, 07:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many do you think actually CHOOSE to be uninsured?
</div></div>No idea, however to act like it doesn't happen is ignorant.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many can't get insurance?
</div></div>Probably the same percentage as the answer to question number 1.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why does Mitt Romney have insurance? He doesn't need it!
</div></div>For the very same reason Obama has insurance.