Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear arguments next March over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul — a case that could shake the political landscape as voters are deciding if Obama deserves another term.
This decision to hear arguments in the spring sets up an election-year showdown over the White House's main domestic policy achievement. And it allows plenty of time for a decision in late June, just over four months before Election Day.
The justices announced they will hear an extraordinary five-and-a-half hours of arguments from lawyers on the constitutionality of a provision at the heart of the law and three other related questions about the act. The central provision in question is the requirement that individuals buy health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty.
In the modern era, the last time the court allotted anywhere near this much time for arguments was in 2003 for consideration of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. That case consumed four hours of argument. This argument may spread over two days, as the justices rarely hear more than two or three hours a day.
The 2010 health care overhaul law aims to extend insurance coverage to more than 30 million Americans, through an expansion of Medicaid, the requirement that individuals buy health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty and other measures.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later[^][v]#251,207
I know I'm a faggot for saying this, but I'm actually really excited about this.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 33 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^][v]#251,229
@previous (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I am too, a little.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 17 seconds later, 48 minutes after the original post[^][v]#251,230
I hope to fucking God it's declared unconstitutional. It's disgusting to me the full force of government is going to be used to compel "free" citizens to purchase a for profit service from the private sector.
Tea Party campaigner joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 49 minutes after the original post[^][v]#251,231
That's SOCIALISM.
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^][v]#251,234
@previous (Tea Party campaigner)
Actually it's worse than socialism. It's fascism.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^][v]#251,236
> Wrong. Niggers/kikes are the disease.
Fixed for accuracy.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#251,389
@previous (H)
Can we please not be racist? They are still humans too, by the way.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#251,398
> The states say individuals cannot be forced to buy insurance, a "product" they may neither want nor need.
> The Justice Department had countered the states' argument by saying that since every American will need medical care at some point in their lives, individuals do not "choose" to participate in the health care market.
Wow, that sounds like a scary argument: We're pretty sure that you will need this at some point in your life, so no choice ever existed.
Anonymous H replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#251,401
@251,389 (I)
They are inbred and lack the genetic benefits of interbreeding with the neanderthals.
!JuMPb0dbaE joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^][v]#251,413
I kind of don't agree with it bring mandatory.
Its really a fucked system. Almost everyone with money has health insurance. Why are we so against socialized health care? Other countries are much healthier than us who have it. People can still get private care.
I know it another way of forcing people, but it doesn't feel the same.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 13 hours later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#251,535
@previous (!JuMPb0dbaE) > I know it another way of forcing people, but it doesn't feel the same.
lol
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
Anonymous D replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^][v]#251,546
@251,413 (!JuMPb0dbaE)
It's not the same. Citizens have representation in government. Only shareholders have any sort of representation in corporations. It's a big fucking difference.
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#251,624
@251,413 (!JuMPb0dbaE)
I don't know anyone who really knows & understands the "reform" who actually likes it. Certainly not any progressives who'd otherwise support moves toward socialized or single payer health care.
I think it's unlikely to be overturned by the Supreme Court, though.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#251,674
@251,546 (D)
The difference is that corporations have to do something you want to get your money, government can just take it.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#251,680
The executive branch is arguing the fines are a tax, because fining someone for not buying a product is definitely unconstitutional. But as a tax, it is a direct tax. As such it is unconstitutional, because direct taxes are expressly unconstitutional for the federal government. Except for one narrow case, income tax, which is only constitutional via amendment.
Direct taxes are verboten.
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#251,681
@251,674 (M)
That's right, and we get nothing in return. Nothing at all.
What's a social contract?
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#251,690
Most of us have insurance. Making it more expensive by making us pay for people we have no connection to and gutting existing medical treatment for the rest of us makes it worse for the nearly three hundred million who are insured.
There's a reason so many people cone to the us for treatment.
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#251,693
@previous (N)
Blame the republicans for that joke of a health bill. Should've just gone full socialized.
marvin !H0G.H/BnJg (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#251,697
@previous (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
Fuck no, blame the Democrats for their spinelessness. Blame Obama for showing no leadership at all.
(Edited 13 seconds later.)
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 28 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#251,699
We're talking about the government forcing people to purchase a service from a for profit company here. It's the exact opposite of your dumbass preprogrammed response.
Why don't you keep your fucking mouth shut until you have two brain cells to hook together?
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#251,789
@251,680 (N) > The executive branch is arguing the fines are a tax
Some critics are arguing that the fines are actually a tax, but why would the executive branch be arguing this?
> But as a tax, it is a direct tax.
Actually, no. Direct taxes are taxes on land and property or “head†taxes on the general population. The individual mandate does not tax land or property. It is not assessed on the population generally but only on people who don’t buy insurance and aren’t otherwise exempt. It is a tax on behavior.
> As such it is unconstitutional, because direct taxes are expressly unconstitutional for the federal government.
Actually, no. As per the Constitution, direct taxes just have to be apportioned among the population of the states.
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3: Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.