|
|
|
| Authored by: blaisepascal on Friday, June 29 2012 @ 08:40 AM EDT |
My take on the courts decision is thus (without having read
it closely, mind you)
Taking the two issues:
1. Is it a tax? At least 5 Justices said "No".
2. Is the mandate permissible? 4 Justices said "No, no way,
no how, just no.". 4 Justices said "Sure, it falls squarely
under the Commerce Clause, and is OK".
Justice Roberts said "I don't buy the Commerce Clause
argument, but if it were a tax, it would be OK. Oh, and
here's how I can say "it's a tax" and thus OK, despite us
just deciding it wasn't."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2012 @ 08:51 AM EDT |
If Rwanda can insure over 90% of its people with its national system why can't
the US. Sure they cannot get whizz-bank Star Trek treatments but they are a
third world country. So why can't the US, the number one First World
country,raise their medical insurance coverage to that of a Third World nation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Friday, June 29 2012 @ 08:52 AM EDT |
I think the issue is political.
I live in a country that has universal health care, and even as someone who can
afford to pay for my own health care, I would be strongly opposed to removing
it. I just don't understand what many Americans are so afraid of.
But ignore me, I could be crazy. I have the right to health care, but not the
right to own a gun (and I'm happy with that).
But I'm no stranger to Constitutional courts reading strange things into
constitutions. Our constitution says that our country was unpopulated when the
Europeans arrived. Our High Court (about 20 years ago) decided to ignore this
and accept the constitutional fiction that our indigenous people actually
existed!
I'm no expert in constitutional law (and especially not US constitutional law),
but I would certainly not read into the US constitution the things that many
Americans take for granted.
It seems to me that Constitutional law is less about black letter law and more
about how you were brought up. It would come as no surprise to people in the US
that the Justices of the Australian High Court are, just as often as their
counterparts in the US Supreme Court, criticised as acting according to their
perceived political leanings. Both sets of Justices are often characterised by
the flavour of Government that appointed them.
---
---
That's not a law suit. *THIS* is a law suit![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2012 @ 09:36 AM EDT |
One US politician obviously in the throes of deep emotion fulminated that if
this pernicious bill were not repealed the US might end up with a health care
system like ... like ... New Zealand!
I live in New Zealand. Ain't nothing wrong with our health care system. In fact
for everyone except perhaps the 1% it is probably a darned sight better than
what you have in the US. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2012 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
Foolish shills!!! This time the average American won not the
special interests[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 29 2012 @ 05:26 PM EDT |
Except your tax increase argument has a big flaw. I, a holder of a health
insurance policy, will see lower rates overall when all the freeloaders on the
system are required to pay insurance for their health care. So in effect for me
and most of the rest of the population it is a "tax" decrease.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
