Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-13-2011, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Sango, TN
24,868 posts, read 24,412,154 times
Reputation: 8672

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
It isn't automatic. They have file the paper work first, and there's no guarantee the Supreme Court will here it.



Prove it.

The case does not automatically go to the Supreme Court. You might want to go back and read or re-read your high school government text book.

In any event, the Supreme Court has already decided what cases it will hear this year, and it will not be hearing this case this year.

Since the case extensively quotes the Supreme Court, it is unlikely the Supreme Court will review it, even more so since the Supreme Court is not in the habit of reversing its own opinions.
If you don't think this is going to the supreme court, then you are living in a fantasy land.

No way this isn't going to the highest court in the land. As I've said before, the current count is 3 rulings for, and 3 rulings against this law.

And, as others have stated, all this would mean is that the mandate is removed from the law, not the whole law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-13-2011, 04:06 PM
C.C
 
2,235 posts, read 2,364,505 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post
If you don't think this is going to the supreme court, then you are living in a fantasy land.

No way this isn't going to the highest court in the land. As I've said before, the current count is 3 rulings for, and 3 rulings against this law.

And, as others have stated, all this would mean is that the mandate is removed from the law, not the whole law.
Are you saying SCOTUS couldn't strike down the whole law? Iwould think their review would include whether or not the mandate is separable?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2011, 04:21 PM
 
12,964 posts, read 13,694,677 times
Reputation: 9695
big deal, Judges are bought and sold just like corrupt politicians
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2011, 06:58 PM
 
Location: it depends
6,369 posts, read 6,416,209 times
Reputation: 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest View Post
What other areas of the law are you suggesting are unconstitutional?
Although the issue has not gotten much attention due to the high profile of the mandate question, the effective outlawing of high-deductible insurance policies is a gross restriction on our freedoms. The defective and overreaching provisions that define what policies must cover ought to be ruled unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-13-2011, 07:00 PM
 
13,900 posts, read 9,783,660 times
Reputation: 6856
Some court rulings say the act is constitutional and some say unconstitutional. I'm not even paying close attention until the Supreme Court hears the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 04:45 AM
C.C
 
2,235 posts, read 2,364,505 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo View Post
Although the issue has not gotten much attention due to the high profile of the mandate question, the effective outlawing of high-deductible insurance policies is a gross restriction on our freedoms. The defective and overreaching provisions that define what policies must cover ought to be ruled unconstitutional.
I agree wholeheartedly. But AFAIK that provision hasn't been challenged. I like my high-deductible coverage, and I was told over and over that if I like my policy I would be able to keep it. Right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 05:09 AM
 
46,323 posts, read 27,157,406 times
Reputation: 11136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979 View Post

And, as others have stated, all this would mean is that the mandate is removed from the law, not the whole law.
I have not been following this thread, so this not a flame question a ***** question or anything like that....

But, if that mandate goes away...how can the bill survive?

I thought the bill was built around the mandate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2011, 05:17 AM
C.C
 
2,235 posts, read 2,364,505 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
I have not been following this thread, so this not a flame question a ***** question or anything like that....

But, if that mandate goes away...how can the bill survive?

I thought the bill was built around the mandate?
Technically it can survive. But removal of the mandate opens the door for people to buy coverage whenever they need treatment, and drop it when the treatment is done. Needless to say, insurance rates would skyrocket...

OTOH, the fines for violating the mandate are so low that plenty of people will do that even if the mandate stays in...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2011, 09:55 AM
 
27,169 posts, read 15,352,042 times
Reputation: 12086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
What we need is a Congress and a President that actually adheres to the limitations imposed upon them by the US Constitution and their oaths of office. Which does not include health care, marriage, education, or a myriad of other powers they have illegally usurped from the States.

If you are truly desperate for socialist state-run health care system either get your State to enact one, or move to a backward socialist nation and cough up 50%+ of your income to pay for it. But it has absolutely no business being part of our federal government.

I am bluesjuke and I wholeheartedly endorse this post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2011, 10:01 AM
 
7,871 posts, read 10,139,326 times
Reputation: 3241
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest View Post
What other areas of the law are you suggesting are unconstitutional?
I'm not.

Judge Vinson of the District Court did.

The Circuit Court overruled him in all aspects except this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top