Two Day Poll: How Will SCOTUS Rule On Obamacare?

Even if the Supreme's rule against the Obama Administration, the Republican Party loses.

Their only health care plan is to repeal Obamacare. Other than that, there is no Republican health care plan. All that is in place is a STOP sign, with no path going forward and no way to turn around.

What is the Republican Party's back-up plan for the millions of Americans who would suddenly be without health insurance?

Yep, you guessed it! Nothing!

They have had 5 years to prepare for this day. Yet nothing is currently in place!

All talk and no action!

From Politicio:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...1#.VYkww3A8KrU Originally Posted by bigtex

You keep saying stuff like this like it's true. At the very least we go back to the starting place which is an option but we don't go back to nothing. Admit that or be a shit! Now the GOP has offered some ideas (they offered them back in 2009 and 10 but no one was listening) about tort reform, portable insurance, and some have even said let's give everyone a check to buy their own insurance (which would be far cheaper than Obamacare if it was tied to income). So the GOP has some ideas and not like that lie you're trying to spread that they have nothing. I can say that the democrats have nothing beyond what they did and the Supremes may be ready to strike that down. So in reality, it is the democrats who have nothing.

Typically assbackwards statement. This mess was a result of an attempt to clean up the mess you folks have been propagating for decades. Originally Posted by timpage

Now you have to lie....(and I bet those tits are fake). The Congress has been under the control of the democrats for most of the last 60 years. So who is responsible for this mess? The people you say didn't do anything and didn't care (the GOP) or the people who tried various schemes and tricks which got us to where we are today. This is a democratic mess before Obamacare and after Obamacare.

As individual members of the court they have their political outlook and objectives that they will impose on us. The constitution/legal arguments are their intellectual cover.

It is funny you would think that the members aren't biased with respect to this.

And I have no doubt you are so naive as to think that public (and private) opinions do not matter to these judges. You can bank on it that Obama has tried to influence their decision making (publicly and privately)...why wouldn't GOP leadership? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I didn't say that they don't have a political outlook or an objective. I said they don't give a rat's ass about what Obama or the GOP wants and I will stand by that statement. Why would they? There is nothing that Obama or the GOP or anybody else can do to a sitting member of the SCOTUS. They don't have to troll for votes, they don't need monetary contributions, they don't answer to the press or the POTUS, they have a lifetime appointment to what is arguably one of the most powerful, important and prestigious jobs in the world. Shit,they largely don't even answer to congress although congress, at least theoretically, possesses the power to invalidate SCOTUS decisions via legislation.

The legal landscape is littered with SCOTUS decisions that were incredibly unpopular with political parties and the general public. In fact, almost every single decision of any import that is published by SCOTUS is going to make some segment of the population unhappy. It's the nature of the beast.

Does ideology influence individual decisions? Of course. Is any member of the SCOTUS influenced by some GOP operative's "back door" input or by President Obama making a speech? I don't think so.

You keep saying stuff like this like it's true. At the very least we go back to the starting place which is an option but we don't go back to nothing. Admit that or be a shit! Now the GOP has offered some ideas (they offered them back in 2009 and 10 but no one was listening) about tort reform, portable insurance, and some have even said let's give everyone a check to buy their own insurance (which would be far cheaper than Obamacare if it was tied to income). So the GOP has some ideas and not like that lie you're trying to spread that they have nothing. I can say that the democrats have nothing beyond what they did and the Supremes may be ready to strike that down. So in reality, it is the democrats who have nothing. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I could spend an hour picking this absurd post apart but we'll just pick one ridiculous aspect of it...the old tort reform war horse. What utter bullshit. Doctors in most jurisdictions have been utterly immunized from any sort of tort liability no matter what sort of negligent activities they engage in. It hasn't changed the healthcare landscape in any way,shape or form. All it's done is deprive citizens of their constitutional right to a trial by a jury of their peers. It hasn't lowered malpractice premiums, it hasn't lowered health costs, it hasn't done shit except put more money into the pockets of the health care liability insurance carriers who no longer have to pay settlements or judgments when a doctor removes the wrong kidney from his patient.

Fuck off admiral.

They are currently on the dole in terms of healthcare. They get taxpayer money to help pay for their insurance. Originally Posted by Budman

What stupid fucks do not realize is that front end care care a whole lot cheaper that ER care.

That was the goal of Obamacare.

... against what?

The same millions who didn't have it before .... status quo ....

... now they can apply for government assistance directly. Originally Posted by LexusLover

How about you go on record and answer the question that COG asked.

The big decision is expected Thursday. I can't believe that SCOTUS can ignore the clear reading of the statute, and Obamacare goes down. But their weakness to be liked and invited to nice parties have ruled the day before, so who knows?

This is just a straw poll. Answer below. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I actually agree with COG. I think it will go down. It is pretty cut and dry as to the language


.

What stupid fucks do not realize is that front end care care a whole lot cheaper that ER care.

That was the goal of Obamacare. Originally Posted by WTF

And, taxpayer money for premiums is a lot different than tax payer money to fund an uninsured person's treatment for cancer, a broken leg or a trauma activation at an ER.

.....

If you could write with clarity, it would be easy to read. You seem to be falling into a pattern of vagueness, which gives you an opportunity for hedging ...

... like the All-Time Hedging Champion .... BigTits.....

....He even scribbles questions with sufficient vagueness to be objectionable. Originally Posted by LexusLover

If you weren't a fucking retard, one would not have to lead you by the hand , and explain every word . It was apparent you were unable to enter the straw poll without slinging shit, lexie lacking. The statement "will rule against" was just too baffling for you.

I could spend an hour picking this absurd post apart but we'll just pick one ridiculous aspect of it...the old tort reform war horse. What utter bullshit. Doctors in most jurisdictions have been utterly immunized from any sort of tort liability no matter what sort of negligent activities they engage in. It hasn't changed the healthcare landscape in any way,shape or form. All it's done is deprive citizens of their constitutional right to a trial by a jury of their peers. It hasn't lowered malpractice premiums, it hasn't lowered health costs, it hasn't done shit except put more money into the pockets of the health care liability insurance carriers who no longer have to pay settlements or judgments when a doctor removes the wrong kidney from his patient.

Fuck off admiral. Originally Posted by timpage

Want to be picked apart? Funny how something that has not been enacted has had so many negative consequences. Plus, you still lied about the GOP having no plan. They do and you lied. Plain and simple.

I could spend an hour picking this absurd post apart but we'll just pick one ridiculous aspect of it...the old tort reform war horse. What utter bullshit. Doctors in most jurisdictions have been utterly immunized from any sort of tort liability no matter what sort of negligent activities they engage in. It hasn't changed the healthcare landscape in any way,shape or form. All it's done is deprive citizens of their constitutional right to a trial by a jury of their peers. It hasn't lowered malpractice premiums, it hasn't lowered health costs, it hasn't done shit except put more money into the pockets of the health care liability insurance carriers who no longer have to pay settlements or judgments when a doctor removes the wrong kidney from his patient.

Fuck off admiral. Originally Posted by timpage

I was wondering when tort reform would rear it's ugly head. That's the conservative battle cry that means absolutely nothing, for all the reasons you stated.

If you weren't a fucking retard, one would not have to lead you by the hand , and explain every word . It was apparent you were unable to enter the straw poll without slinging shit, lexie lacking. The statement "will rule against" was just too baffling for you. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Is hilarious that he chides others about writing with clarity when he writes like he gorges on retard sandwiches.

Want to be picked apart? Funny how something that has not been enacted has had so many negative consequences. Plus, you still lied about the GOP having no plan. They do and you lied. Plain and simple. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

They don't have a plan. As usual, they have a list of unrealistic, idealistic bullshit that can't and won't be an impact on real people's lives.

They don't have a plan. As usual, they have a list of unrealistic, idealistic bullshit that can't and won't be an impact on real people's lives. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Is this Gruber?

Is this Gruber? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No, but I also think you're stupid.

How about you go on record and answer the question that COG asked.




I actually agree with COG. I think it will go down. It is pretty cut and dry as to the language


. Originally Posted by WTF

As for the question COG asked I don't know: Roberts' first opinion on ACA was not "strict" construction, but interpretation of meaning to save the constitutionality, which is a departure from his label as a strict constructionist, AND could indicate how he might go with the literal language of the statute ... construe the "real" meaning to save the law. Justices seem to stray from their initial character upon which they were approved at times, and Roberts seems no exception. I will be surprised if he writes the majority again for this round. In the other direction Roberts has expressed his preference for "state's rights" when it involves personal, private issues, such as health care.