Obamacare Going Down?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

How is any side wrong in how to interpret the Constitution? It's a pretty fluid and vague document.

Originalism vs living, they can't both be right.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Originalism vs living, they can't both be right.

Why not? Why can't we accept a degree of validity from both and simply pick from either side what is most prudent at the time?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why not? Why can't we accept a degree of validity from both and simply pick from either side what is most prudent at the time?

You aren't arguing for both you're arguing for living.

edit: which means I contradicted myself...your way of doing things would allow for being partisan, unlike strict originalism would would require the judge to stick to his method even if he didn't like the results politically.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You aren't arguing for both you're arguing for living.

Then living is correct.

[CountArach]

I'm not a fan of the bill. The fact that it is required is disturbing to me. If it's required that means US citizens will be forced to live a certain life style. Which is bad because people who could otherwise get by have to pay for something they may not want or plan on using. People have a right to use traditional medicines and lifestyles.

e.g. Nomads? It basically outlaws a nomadic lifestyle. Which might not sound like a big deal, but I think it is. As an environmentalist I am concerned with reducing my carbon footprint, and I can do that. Cheaply, but if you add expenses to my simplistic life style, it starts to become difficult to afford. I simply do not make enough money as an artist to pay for anything besides my basic human needs. I live in Michigan too, so we're expected to pay insurance on cars as a law. I don't own a car. If I did I couldn't afford it, nor could I afford gas.

I simply want my right to live as I choose. It's not hurting anyone else or our nation. In fact, I think it's helping the nation, but if the bill passes, I might not be able to live how I choose to live.

Out of curiosity would you support a single-payer healthcare scheme?

[gaelic cowboy]

I'm not a fan of the bill. The fact that it is required is disturbing to me. If it's required that means US citizens will be forced to live a certain life style. Which is bad because people who could otherwise get by have to pay for something they may not want or plan on using. People have a right to use traditional medicines and lifestyles.

e.g. Nomads? It basically outlaws a nomadic lifestyle. Which might not sound like a big deal, but I think it is. As an environmentalist I am concerned with reducing my carbon footprint, and I can do that. Cheaply, but if you add expenses to my simplistic life style, it starts to become difficult to afford. I simply do not make enough money as an artist to pay for anything besides my basic human needs. I live in Michigan too, so we're expected to pay insurance on cars as a law. I don't own a car. If I did I couldn't afford it, nor could I afford gas.

I simply want my right to live as I choose. It's not hurting anyone else or our nation. In fact, I think it's helping the nation, but if the bill passes, I might not be able to live how I choose to live.

eh nomadism has never been exactly very enviromental now has it, the nomad uses up all the local resources and moves on.
Nomadism is merely about allowing the enviroment time to recover from humanities destructive practices.

I very much doubt Obama is coming to take away your ayahuasca.

Stating you will be prevented from literally living how you want strikes me as alarmism in the extreme, if a person were that poor they could just go to the same clicic as all the homeless people go to.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I wasn't talking about the split on constitutional interpretation, I was referring to a pattern of croney-ism that follows party lines predictably (for example, Roberts was outrageously given the Chief Justice spot by Bush and he's been very loyal to the neo-con agenda). Maybe its not new, maybe its just under-reported throughout history. Either way, I feel it undermines what should be the "purest" of the branches.

But the article just showed that the judges 80% of the time do not strictly follow party lines, including Roberts.

[rvg]

But the article just showed that the judges 80% of the time do not strictly follow party lines, including Roberts.

Most of them kinda do. Scalia, Thomas and Alito are the conservative wing. Ginsburg, Kagan and The Wise Latina are the die hard libs. Roberts is mostly conservo, Breyer is mostly liberal, and Kennedy ends up making all the decisions.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Most of them kinda do. Scalia, Thomas and Alito are the conservative wing. Ginsburg, Kagan and The Wise Latina are the die hard libs. Roberts is mostly conservo, Breyer is mostly liberal, and Kennedy ends up making all the decisions.

Of course. But looking at the results as a whole​, it would be dishonest to claim that we have the equivalent of puppets on the SCOTUS who simply follow their ideological masters. What we have are nine judges who have strong convictions about Constitutional law backed by logical rationale who nevertheless do make decisions as they themselves see fit from such rationale. Such strong convictions skew the way they vote into somewhat dividable lines of "conservative" and "liberal" but these terms shown by the article are not very accurate and thus show a weakness in the argument of them being stooges of the president who put them there.

And as Sasaki has just enlightened me, it is quite obvious that when you subscribe to the originalist strain of thought, there is no fluidity to what is the correct decision in a case, it is right there, shown through the intentions of the author from his/her writings. So of course you would at least have a natural block of "conservatives" that all vote along similar lines. But this in no way indicates any sketchyness but simply that these originalist judges are all starting from common axioms they consider true and are all following the implications of these axioms to the reach the same conclusions.

[CountArach]

*Then again, I'd like to be wrong. If they shoot down the individual mandate and admit that individual freedom is THAT important, and that the government REALLY SHOULD stay out of your business, then that's a fantastic precedent to set. We could close down gitmo on that precedent. We could repeal the Patriot Act on that precedent. We could keep the feds out of state-legal Medical Marijuana programs with that precedent. We could do a lot of good with it. But unfortunately, I think they'll just shoot down the bill with specific wording, so nothing will change and no decent precedent will be set unless this Healthcare bill is the only thing on the table you feel is worth talking about, as far as the government being able to make you do things goes.

There's a lot of good that it could do, yes, but at the same time the implicatins of that sort of precedent are huge. All it takes is some nutjob to say that the Federal Emergency Services (or some other equivalent which just can't be done properly at state level) infringe on his liberty and should be a state responsibility and suddenly he has a potential precedent to draw upon. I don't like the individual mandate, but I think that there should be some way to get rid of it without the Supreme Court getting involved.

As for how liberal/conservative the supreme court is, one metric has found that this is the most conservative bench ever.

[rvg]

There's a lot of good that it could do, yes, but at the same time the implicatins of that sort of precedent are huge. All it takes is some nutjob to say that the Federal Emergency Services (or some other equivalent which just can't be done properly at state level) infringe on his liberty and should be a state responsibility and suddenly he has a potential precedent to draw upon.

Not really. His case would likely be totally different as in he'll get spanked by the lower courts and SCOTUS would refuse to hear the case.

I don't like the individual mandate, but I think that there should be some way to get rid of it without the Supreme Court getting involved.

It's too late for that now.

As for how liberal/conservative the supreme court is, one metric has found that this is the most conservative bench ever.

It's been like this since Renquist, but it's getting more liberal: at least David Souter and Sandra D. O'Connor were somewhat centrist. Elena Kagan and The Wise Latina both are outspoken liberals.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

The Native Americans were mostly nomadic or semi-nomadic and they seemed to do a good job of not making a mess of things. But the modern government very much desires stability in it's populace. They're easier to watch and control that way.

I'm still pretty young so yeah, I kind of am a nomad. I intend to settle down someday but when I do I want to live in a sustainable way. Growing my own food, not contributing to pollution, etc. But as I only make money from selling art, my funds are pretty limited. I am looking for what people might call "a real job" but no one has ever given me one. I live in Michigan and our economy here is horrible.

Well... single payer healthcare? No I don't think I would. Is healthcare really important? I don't want it. I can't afford it. But what is government for? Is it to govern matters of state or line our pockets? To support our every need? I don't think so. And I don't want to pay for services I don't use.

On a final note, I literally can't afford to pay it.

[gaelic cowboy]

Well... single payer healthcare? No I don't think I would. Is healthcare really important? I don't want it. I can't afford it. But what is government for? Is it to govern matters of state or line our pockets? To support our every need? I don't think so. And I don't want to pay for services I don't use.

There is a bit of an inconsistency here though have you ever had the occasion to use the millitary, police or judicury.

If you dont use any of those services or at least use the less than most should you be exempt from paying for them an all.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

There is a bit of an inconsistency here though have you ever had the occasion to use the millitary, police or judicury.

If you dont use any of those services or at least use the less than most should you be exempt from paying for them an all.

I've used the bare minimum of services from the government, but that's not the key to my argument either. I'm not arguing for an end to taxes for example. I'll pay taxes. I just don't want to be told I have to buy something if I don't want it. Isn't that an American right?

In Michigan we're required to pay for car insurance as well, and that's a horrible system. Lets say you pay the bare minimum state mandated insurance. Well if you get into an accident caused by a drunk driver but the drunk driver has better insurance, you owe him money. Even if you're hurt so bad you have to go to the hospital. If you get in any accident with the bare minimum insurance, you will be the one who pays. If you caused the accident or were the victim. So in my state at least, people pay for something that might as well not even exist. Except if you get into an accident without the minimum insurance here there is a very nasty penalty for that, naturally. It's like paying to not have insurance though, or worthless insurance anyhow.

I'd prefer that the healthcare bill didn't pass or wasn't mandatory.

[rvg]

I've used the bare minimum of services from the government, but that's not the key to my argument either. I'm not arguing for an end to taxes for example. I'll pay taxes. I just don't want to be told I have to buy something if I don't want it. Isn't that an American right?

In Michigan we're required to pay for car insurance as well, and that's a horrible system. Lets say you pay the bare minimum state mandated insurance. Well if you get into an accident caused by a drunk driver but the drunk driver has better insurance, you owe him money. Even if you're hurt so bad you have to go to the hospital. If you get in any accident with the bare minimum insurance, you will be the one who pays. If you caused the accident or were the victim. So in my state at least, people pay for something that might as well not even exist. Except if you get into an accident without the minimum insurance here there is a very nasty penalty for that, naturally. It's like paying to not have insurance though, or worthless insurance anyhow.

I'd prefer that the healthcare bill didn't pass or wasn't mandatory.

The purpose of no-fault insurance is not to cover you, but your potential victim. If you put someone in a wheelchair as a result of an accident, the no-fault insurance will cover that.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

The purpose of no-fault insurance is not to cover you, but your potential victim. If you put someone in a wheelchair as a result of an accident, the no-fault insurance will cover that.

Not everybody can easily afford that though.

[rvg]

Not everybody can easily afford that though.

So what? Nobody's required to drive either.

[rvg]

Orly? Not having a liscense can prohibit you from many jobs that simply won't hire you if you don't have your own transportation. In many cities the public transportation is simply not good enough to meet the needs of a busy and productive citizen--El Paso springs to mind.

The entire Auto industry and Auto Insurance industry is a giant profiteering nightmare (one that has come back to bite the industry in the ass--but that's okay, WE GOT BAILOUTS! lolz). There's no good reason for everything to be as expensive as it is, other than to make the beaurocracy happy.

*I mean, for crissakes, I own my car. Flat out, I own it. But I can't afford to pay $300/month for insurance that won't even fix a ding in my door. I understand insurance is necesarry for public safety, but if its a public issue then surely its idealogically hypocritical to allow people to profiteer from it, right? I own my car, but because its a sports car and because I'm under 25, the rate is adjusted ridiculously high. I can't drive something that I own, because I can't afford to pay the protection racket. Its a screwy system, and this poor economy highlights its flaws.

If you can't afford to put gas into your car, you won't be driving it either. Insurance is no different.

[Strike For The South]

The Native Americans were mostly nomadic or semi-nomadic and they seemed to do a good job of not making a mess of things. But the modern government very much desires stability in it's populace. They're easier to watch and control that way.
.

False, before the introduction of the horse most Indian tribes were fairly stable and we're not nomads anymore becuase that's no way to conduct buisness. Not becuase big brother is keeping an eye on us.

Kids these days.,.....

[rvg]

Gas does not cost anywhere near $300/month...

Soon it will. Then what?

[rvg]

Then all us poor people watch and laugh while everyone else gets a taste of what its like to not be able to meet your basic needs in spite of your best efforts.

I doubt the poor will be laughing.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

False, before the introduction of the horse most Indian tribes were fairly stable and we're not nomads anymore becuase that's no way to conduct buisness. Not becuase big brother is keeping an eye on us.

Kids these days.,.....

I'm not really protesting for the rights of nomads. But if I were, what would be wrong with that?

Indian tribes often moved north or south to avoid weather changes. I would call that semi-nomadic.

I agree it's not a good way to conduct business but there's more to life than money yes? Oh wait I'm poor. I forget that money is the be-all and end-all of America these days. But with more government involvement there is more of a paper trail to watch us with. Now if I was paranoid about that I'd probably avoid the internet, but I like the internet so I'm not going to do that. I also have nothing to hide. And I'm not afraid to say I'm not a fan of governmental control gaining more power, that's not a crime yet.

But it's not about governmental control either. It's about an added expense that I don't want.

It is about governmental control in the sense it's another mandated law requiring us to pay for more things. And I don't think that's their right. Someone might tell me to get out if I don't like it. Well maybe I will.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

So what? Nobody's required to drive either.

No they're not. But try getting a job without a car. Try making money without a car.

I live in a small town and I am an artist. I have to sell things in the nearest city, a half hour from where I live. (By car. It's a day away from me by bike.) I make enough off it to cover some expenses, but obviously I'm not swimming in cash. I'm looking for permanent work while going to school. Things are pretty tight.

The fact is poor people like me have to fight hard to make it. Add an expense I don't want or need and the government could effectively undo all my hard work. The government keeps poor people down and people who are better off forget about the poor, they're told to forget them. Or perhaps it helps them sleep at night to pretend poor people don't exist. I don't blame them. If I was part of the system that made life worse for the poor I'd worry about my health and safety.

Gelatinous Cube, I'm glad to see another sensible person in this thread. Best of luck to you.

[rvg]

The bitter spiteful kind, not the cheerful kind.

But I was late with this edit in my earlier post, you may not have seen it:

Plus with Gas, you pay as you go. You got $20 for gas, you're good for awhile. You try to do that with insurance and they hike your rates even higher for being unreliable with your payments. Its a joke, and poor people are the only ones not laughing.

You can't compare gas and insurance. One is a commodity, the other is a rigged system.

Okay, then stop being poor, I guess. Or stop driving. Or keep driving and keep complaining, which is okay as long as you keep paying the premiums. We've all gone through the penniless college student phase. Paying more for insurance because of the age and not having enough money in general. Later on the situation reverses as you pay less (due to age) while making more moolah. Then you start paying more again, then you stop paying and stop driving and not long afterwards you die. C'est la vie.

[Strike For The South]

I'm not really protesting for the rights of nomads. But if I were, what would be wrong with that?

Indian tribes often moved north or south to avoid weather changes. I would call that semi-nomadic.

Which Indians? The most advanced tribes were also the ones that stayed put. Even the proverbial plains Indian stayed put the majority of the time until the horse was introduced.

I agree it's not a good way to conduct business but there's more to life than money yes? Oh wait I'm poor. I forget that money is the be-all and end-all of America these days. But with more government involvement there is more of a paper trail to watch us with. Now if I was paranoid about that I'd probably avoid the internet, but I like the internet so I'm not going to do that. I also have nothing to hide. And I'm not afraid to say I'm not a fan of governmental control gaining more power, that's not a crime yet.

Another college kid groaning about the evils of money. Spare me. Money is certainly not the be all end all, but at the risk of go off on a tangent I'll say this. Everything you see around you is due to the movement and accumulation of capitial and stable property rights. Two things which are anathema in a nomadic socitey. There are limits on a nomadic society much like there are limits on a society which relys on the passing of information through oral history.

But it's not about governmental control either. It's about an added expense that I don't want.

It is about governmental control in the sense it's another mandated law requiring us to pay for more things. And I don't think that's their right. Someone might tell me to get out if I don't like it. Well maybe I will.

Was this about roads? The roads a publicly funded good

Also if you "get out" where would you go? The US is the most right wing, least socialist country anywhere within the realm of post industrial living standards, mostly due to a vast population and natural rescources.

I feel there is a lesson there.

[rvg]

No, no, no. Don't tell me to work harder. That's a cowardly way out of this discussion, and pretty close to ad hominem.

I didn't tell you to work harder. I told you to stop being poor.

Auto Insurance Companies may as well be designed to keep the poor off the road. Do you dispute this?

I sure do. They want the poor driving and paying since the poor are their meal ticket.

Do you think the way it is conducted is just fine? Do you really so no contradiction between the assertion that it's a public safety issue and the fact that its handled by profit-mongering corporations?

Why, do you want the government to do it instead? You think they would do a better job?

This is exactly the kind of thing the Individual Mandate discussion should be making you think about.

Totally different. Millions of people in this country don't drive and thus don't need car insurance. Individual health mandate is all inclusive, which is why it is so abhorrent to me.

[rvg]

You'd be singing a different tune if the only thing keeping you off the road was unfair rates.

The "tune" you're referring to is very familiar to me. I've been there myself: young age+low income+crappy car=high insurance rates. It's just a fact of life. As you add on a few more years, a few more pounds, a few more benjamins in every paycheck and get a better car, the rates will become very reasonable.

Life's a bitch.

[rvg]

There's no reason for car insurance to cost as much as it does, but because it can be gotten away with it gets gotten away with.

Business is business. Anything other than a paltry sum is likely to be judged as unfair. If businesses aren't allowed to set their own prices, they might stop offering the service altogether. That's definitely not a good scenario.

[rvg]

A paltry sum is already too much to force someone to pay.

Nobody is required to pay as nobody is required to drive.

[Tsar Alexsandr]

Business is business. But what about moral and civic obligations?

With the current laws and business practices it is very hard to get ahead for the countries poorer citizens. The thing is, there are people who are very poor. I know lots of people who are worse off than me and other people I know.