Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There has been much criticism on this thread about constitutional interpretation, which is a function of the Judicial Branch. This is nothing new. Every time the federal courts come out with a decision that is contrary to popular sentiment, there is a great outcry about "liberal judges," "conservative judges," "activist judges" - not to mention a general call to "reform" the courts, or do away with them altogether. Such criticisms are hardly justified. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a more staid group than those that make up the federal judiciary. (One does not get ahead by espousing radical ideas, one way or the other, about the law: witness the failed confirmation of the appointment of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.)
Given the role of the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts) in the system of checks and balances provided in the Constitution, an independent judiciary is essential, for it acts as a curb against the encroachment of government on individual rights and liberty. Under the constitutional provision for separation of powers, federal judges are not supposed to be subject to political influence in fulfilling the court's role. A federal judge, who serves with life tenure on good behavior, can wield great power; which is why it is important to appoint "qualified" persons and not just political ideologues to the federal bench. That is why federal judges are appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Senate and not elected.
Our courts are the great levelers, for all men stand equal before the law. But while we are a nation of laws and not men, it is men who administer the laws and mete out justice. Most state judges are elected officials, and others appointed by executive authority; and there are few whose judgments are not influenced by politics, whether it be associated with getting reelected or avoiding impeachment from office. To make federal judges accountable in this way would turn the judiciary into courts of popular appeal, which is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.
Interesting to me is that if this is struck down, we get closer to the liberal dream of single payer health care. This larded law is basically built to protect he health insurance industry. We either proceed with the current system without the mandate, which would devastate the industry, or we go back to the single payer model of socialized health care, which the people want, but the GOP does not.
Frankly, I am all in for the single payer model. Plenty of other successful countries do it, and it takes a heavy burden off their companies. So, the SCOTUS is basically saying the private model suggested by the GOP in the 1990s, and adopted by Obama with modifications, is not tenable. Fine. Time to join the rest of the civilized world with single payer.
I think the SCOTUS is smart enough to see these consequences, and so will not rule against it. It is the biggest boon to the health insurance industry in our history. Now that I think of it, I hope they do turn it down!
*** As an aside, I enjoyed listening to the justices debate this. It is a very important question for our country, and it is cool to have these discussion. That is, if people are really thinking about the implications of this issue.
Well the implications are disastrous if Obamacare stands. But speaking of that, it would be interesting to know how many liberals:
1. geniuinely believe Obama's rhetoric about keeping your insurance plan and lowered costs
2. know the rhetoric is false but believe the expanded coverage to uninsured people justifies the lies and cost overruns
3. know the whole thing is a disaster but don't care because they think any step towards more government control over healthcare is better
You know, if the GOP doesn't want socialized medicine and the people voted for the GOP in record-breaking numbers in 2010, then it's pretty silly to say the people want socialized medicine.
Amidst all your arguments for why Obamacare is good, ou're missing the point that we have a constitution in this country. They're not deciding on whether or not the mandate is a good or bad idea. Their job is not to decide whether something is legal, not whether it is good. It does not matter how many other countries have single payer, or what a burden insurance is on companies, or anything else. If the constitution doesn't allow it, then it doesn't allow it. End of story. Unless you support judicial activisim to subvert the constitution.
If you are appointed to the Supreme Court...a tacit agreement is made..that you do what you are told by the ones who put you there...there is no "muscling" going on...just some mild resistance to authority...
No kidding. Apparently it's not judicial activism if the SCOTUS creates law from the bench, but it is activism if they strike down a law.
Hey congress!! Why don't you try writing good law in the first place, and not subvert the legislative process with bribes, kickbacks, exclusions, secretive, closed door meetings, and then ram almost 3,000 pages of unread law down our throats.
If Obama wants to fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the federal government, we have an amendment process to the US Constitution, specifically made for that process.
Well the implications are disastrous if Obamacare stands. But speaking of that, it would be interesting to know how many liberals:
1. geniuinely believe Obama's rhetoric about keeping your insurance plan and lowered costs
2. know the rhetoric is false but believe the expanded coverage to uninsured people justifies the lies and cost overruns
3. know the whole thing is a disaster but don't care because they think any step towards more government control over healthcare is better
You know, if the GOP doesn't want socialized medicine and the people voted for the GOP in record-breaking numbers in 2010, then it's pretty silly to say the people want socialized medicine.
Amidst all your arguments for why Obamacare is good, ou're missing the point that we have a constitution in this country. They're not deciding on whether or not the mandate is a good or bad idea. Their job is not to decide whether something is legal, not whether it is good. It does not matter how many other countries have single payer, or what a burden insurance is on companies, or anything else. If the constitution doesn't allow it, then it doesn't allow it. End of story. Unless you support judicial activisim to subvert the constitution.
1) What leads you to dispute CBO estimates that conclude that the ACA lowers medical costs?
2) Why do you call the ACA "socialized medicine?" Medical care is provided by private doctors and the insurance is provided by private insurance companies. So, where is the socialized part? Government has been regulating insurance fr generations.
That article was written BEFORE Tuesday's hearings. I have a feeling that the writer might feel less confident today than when he wrote that article, based on the question and answer session. The government's arguments against the points raised by the article were not even brought up and/or were very ill defended. The SG did a horrendous job.
Then, why is it that government funded health care all over Europe is 1/2 the cost of private insurance in the U.S.?
People will charge for their goods and services what the market will bear. When government floods the market with tens of billions of dollars, the costs go up. It's supply and demand. Now, in Europe the governments often control the medical facilities, in which case they can control the supply. Or they will pay for care, but they decide when and whether you get it, not you. Again it's supply and demand - this time controlling costs through arbitrarily restricting either supply or demand.
So the answer is simple - government funded healthcare is 1/2 the cost of American private insurance because the government rations it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
