Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

If Obamacare goes before the Supreme Court again, and the Supreme Court says that you can't penalize those with no health care

Then is Obamacare really a law? Wouldn't it just be a program?

by Anonymousreply 3210/05/2013

We wouldn't be in this predicament if we had a "legitimate" President.

by Anonymousreply 110/04/2013

Why would it go before the court again?

by Anonymousreply 210/04/2013

The next Supreme Court nightmare for Obamacare is that the individual mandate was declared by the Supremes as "a tax".

All tax bills MUST originate in the House.

Obamacare originated in the Senate.

It will be struck down on this.

by Anonymousreply 310/04/2013

Struck down, r3? The entire thing?

by Anonymousreply 410/04/2013

Not a chance R3. The one thing the Repugs have repeatedly said which is true, is that once it's in place it will NEVER be rescinded. Changed, yes, but as of 10/1/13 it's here to stay.

by Anonymousreply 510/04/2013

The aca is a law with multiple parts. Parts can be struct down as unconstitutional but not the whole, it has already passed the litmus test of house, senate, signed by president, challenged and ruled constitutional.

by Anonymousreply 610/04/2013

I think the Supremes would have ruled on that when they had a chance, if they thought the point was valid. I don't think this particular issue ever gets near the top court.

by Anonymousreply 710/04/2013

They're taking down parts of the Healthcare.gov website this weekend to try and fix it. According to IT experts interviewed in the press, the architecture of the site is flawed and may have to be rebuilt. I hope they can fix it, otherwise this could be a PR nightmare.

I've gotten registered, but haven't been able to sign in yet.

by Anonymousreply 810/04/2013

[quote]They're taking down parts of the Healthcare.gov website this weekend to try and fix it.

Source?

[quote]According to IT experts interviewed in the press, the architecture of the site is flawed and may have to be rebuilt.

Source?

[quote]I hope they can fix it, otherwise this could be a PR nightmare.

Still no source?

Yeah, that's what I thought. No source.

Fuck off fucking freeper.

Fuck you to death.

by Anonymousreply 910/04/2013

this thread is laughable.

Koch money being wa$sted.

by Anonymousreply 1010/04/2013

[quote]I hope they can fix it, otherwise this could be a PR nightmare.

Oh yeah, I forgot one thing, fucking concern freeper troll.

We don't buy this either.

Fuck off.

by Anonymousreply 1110/04/2013

r9/r11, taking your embarrassing tantrum elsewhere.

by Anonymousreply 1210/04/2013

W&W R12

by Anonymousreply 1310/04/2013

I don't have insurance and I've been paying out of pocket the last couple of years. Now I have new symptoms. Complete loss of feeling in the belly and rectum (I know). Night sweats, hot flashes (new), and a lump under my chin that feels like a grape (just found yesterday). The doctors couldn't figure out what it is when I went in with MS-like symptoms and 1.5 year ankle swelling (over 2 now). No, I'm not fat, old, or a hypochondriac. I was wheezing, at some and swollen at ALL of my appts...the doctors just didn't know why. I spent so much money on doctors and tests. Now, I think whatever it is will have to become more advanced so the doctor orders the right test to find it. I fear it already has.

by Anonymousreply 1410/04/2013

Obamacare would be turned from a law into a suggestion.

by Anonymousreply 1510/04/2013

The Supreme Court will not revisit Obamacare for years if they ever do.

There is no way Obama is going to give up his signature plan. So no changes in sight until 2017 when there's a new President. At this point, I can't see any Republican winning the Presidency as the party is destroying itself with this shutdown.

by Anonymousreply 1610/04/2013

The Supreme Court cannot rule on an action that is yet to take place. There is a very significant chance that once the tax, fine or mandate is actually enforced this could go back through the courts again. The Supreme Court would have much more authority once a tax or fine is actually levied. This is not over.

by Anonymousreply 1710/04/2013

How with the feds know if you have insurance or not?

by Anonymousreply 1810/04/2013

Hey, R14, you sure it's not because your cooch might have dried up a little early? You know ... "the menopause".

by Anonymousreply 1910/04/2013

R9, it was incredibly easy to search for a source.

by Anonymousreply 2010/04/2013

R18, you do know the IRS is in charge of enforcement right??

by Anonymousreply 2110/04/2013

R9 has Velcro shoes

by Anonymousreply 2210/04/2013

[quote] taking your embarrassing tantrum elsewhere.

Yeah. I'm the problem here.

by Anonymousreply 2310/04/2013

The Supreme Court revisiting the ACA is a freeper wank fantasy being pushed by the likes of Ted Cruz and Mike Lee to keep their racist base revved up and donating. Will not happen.

[quote]The Supreme Court cannot rule on an action that is yet to take place.

But it did, Blanche. It did.

by Anonymousreply 2410/04/2013

Gee, R20, I don't quite see the gloom and doom portents you and your fellow freeper @ R8 attempt to shove up our collective asses.

Nice try.

No sale.

Next.

by Anonymousreply 2510/04/2013

Freeper,

I have a surprise for you in 6 months! A spot on your lungs! A persistent cough! Night sweats! Weight loss! And a loss of your job and benefits!

Madame Voodoo (furiously making a death doll with your name on it.)

by Anonymousreply 2610/04/2013

What makes you think the Court would find this unconstitutional? We have precedent: you are penalized if you rent your home rather than have a mortgage, you're penalized if you don't have children, and you pay a penalty if you work for a living versus off a trust fund or inheritance. Congress has the power to write the tax code, and that the bill was first passed in the Senate makes no difference as the House still had to pass it as well. The theory you're offering is a distinction without a difference.

by Anonymousreply 2710/04/2013

OP--congratulations. Of all of the angles the Repubs will take to increase the cost and decrease the availability of healthcare to non-billionaires, you chose the one angle that the SC has already ruled on.

My guess is that if the republ party survives long enough, their argument will come down to whether people with an income of less than 1/2 billion a year are legally human and therefore entitled to healthcare.

by Anonymousreply 2810/04/2013

R27, don't use words you don't fully grasp. Take a couple of constitutional law classes. I will pay for them.

by Anonymousreply 2910/04/2013

another idiotic thread, being bumped in the wee hours.

hmmmmmm....

by Anonymousreply 3010/04/2013

I still can't understand how one person can be taxed/fined and another not, by fiat of the President. No one even suggests this might be wrong. Is it because he's black?

by Anonymousreply 3110/04/2013

omg r31. a new low in ignorance, even for you.

fiat?

it was passed into a bill by BOTH houses of congress, then became LAW, then the highest court in the land vetted it and upheld it as law.

Remember?

Obviously not. I think you are not even american, so why do you care so much?

(as if i didn't know...$$$$$)

by Anonymousreply 3210/05/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.
×

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed


recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!