Byakuya769
Member
I have feeling that I'm going to look at the Transportation Bill later today and realize that it is complete weaksauce.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Yeah, I'm waiting to see what unrelated crap was pushed in the bill.
House, Senate Pass Transportation Bill, Extend Current Student Loan Rates
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/transportation-bill-student-loans_n_1638116.html
cartoon_soldier
Member
A lot of analysis out today saying that Roberts switched his vote at some point looking at how the opinions have been written.
Officerrob
Banned
Nope. It's still far too complicated for the vast majority to care about
The constitution also says that people have unenumerated rights and equal protections. Powers not granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the states or to the people, but not in violation of individual rights. The 14th amendment empowers the federal government (specifically the judiciary) to enforce this provision against the states.
We're wrestling with whether or not health care is a right. A health insurance mandate on individuals, health insurance being a key component of the health care structure of our country, and whether the federal government can do it while bypassing the states, is vetted differently depending on how the federal courts interpret things.
Is Health care a right?
Is insurance tantamount to having accessible care?
Does the privileges and immunities clause compel states which mandate insurance to provide accessible care to individuals without insurance temporarily within their borders? (Maybe they're driving through, or visiting someone for the weekend).
If health care must be accessible to everyone, but everyone needs to contribute to an insurance pool in order for anyone who wants to access health care to be able to access it, can the federal government require all individuals to act in a way that preserves health care access for any individual? (Commentary: You're already compelled to do things to help others, like answer court summons, or report certain observed crimes. They just almost all have criminal penalties associated with them instead of civil penalties)
If individuals need to access health care, anywhere, at any time, within their own state or outside of their state, and everyone having insurance is necessary to achieve this goal, does requiring individuals to purchase health insurance fall under commerce?
(PS: Would national finance regulations fall under commerce even if creditcard companies could not sell across state lines? )
These are all questions to be considered, but if you're still wrestling with the notion of health care being a right, you're not going to come to a clear consesus on anything. And that's where we are, as a country. We kind of think it's a right and insurance is needed for it, but don't like the idea of not being able to choose whether or not we get insurance, so we object to a mandate while lamenting freeloaders and government providing ap ublic option or single payer.
I expect that over the next few decades, we will see private insurance costs continue to rise, and people continue to pay a fee that, although cheaper than their insurance would have been, gives them nothing in return. Many of them will be too poor to afford insurance but too rich to be subsidized adequately, unfortunately (that's just going to happen at the boundaries, even with proper regulations in place :/ ) As our opinions on health care as a right evolve, turning the fine into a public option or transitioning to a single payer system should become more and more reasonable a proposition.
Is it just me or does this compromise taken slightly out of context just seem so damned crazy to anyone else? Ok, fine you can regulate toxic waste... but we're going to need to give up some environmental protections and safety programs... what? It's like a bully saying "Ok, I'll let you keep your lunch money this time, but I'm going to have to punch you in the face, and then stick you in your locker for the next half hour. But you get to eat! I'm a nice guy, see."
Its funny because I would consider that environmental protection.
Dude Abides
Banned
Lordy. Conservatives haven't been this angry at the SC since Brown v. Board of Education.
Edit: beaten with all deliberate speed.
Edit: beaten with all deliberate speed.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Haven't seen a lot of complaints about Citizen's United or Bush v. Gore from the rightists.
Citzens United gets the right excited.
Roe v. Wade.
The Librarian
Banned
I'm hearing repeal, Mitt, but where's that replace? You have a bunch of goals on your website but you don't detail how you're going to achieve them. Where's a plan that we can dissect?
What a fucking HACK.
Mitt Romney is a spineless piece of shit.
Markets reacts to itself or other markets. Not Washington. You also described every condition that Washington could be. So, there is always certainty, by your incredible logic.
A 30 percent increase is a roar. By any metric.
.gif)
Maybe it's time you go back to sleep.
Byakuya769
Member
The prior market high has no bearing on whether or not you consider the increase over the last four years a rally or robust recovery.
The Librarian
Banned
Fate of PPACA was always going to be decided by the presidential election (as it should be), unless SCOTUS had thrown out the entire law. What's funny (and frightening) is how even the odds were the law was going to be upheld in its entirety or thrown out in its entirety. Most people were predicting upheld besides the mandate as the most likely conclusion, and full repeal least likely.
Are we talking about charts, or the global economy? I used certainty in quotes, and described the conditions by which it can be defined, before trolling me at every opportunity maybe stop and think, I'm not out to create disagreement. I agree the markets have been good based on a 3-4 year chart, but if for example we look at a chart during the debt ceiling debate, we would see high volatility. I think the four year chart proves that things are getting better in the long term, but the short term is volatile. If we get a bad jobs number Friday we could see a really bad day on the market. The fact the economy is improving over a longer term makes me happy. By not wanting to use "roaring back" as my choice of words, I just mean to say I still have trepidation, especially with European debt and Al Gore's prediction's 
There was plenty of outrage over Kelo
Shit is so sad.
el retorno
Member
All I was saying is that Health Care will never be a right in the Constitution. Its not gonna be like privacy.
It will end up like education. A right granted by the legislature not by the supreme court that's what I was trying to say.
I do agree that we has a nation are deciding if that is a right that we want to give. But the consitution doesn't require it.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Are newspapers finally going to go into how HCR affects the people now that SCOTUS ruled its good?
Looks like it.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/...s-explain-supreme-court-health-care-decision/
Looks like it.
http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/...s-explain-supreme-court-health-care-decision/
Could you say the same for Democrats, except in reverse? There was harsh criticism of the Supreme Court before this ruling, and now many are suggesting it should obviously be taken at face value because the Supreme Court decides the law.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Of course. People like SC when it favors them and hate it when it doesn't.
The Librarian
Banned
It depends on the way you look at it. Obviously anybody is going to cheer when SCOTUS rules in your favor, but if they just as easily go back to ruling the way they've been ruling (Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, recent union ruling on Monday), you're going to see that harsh criticism return. There's a section of the VRA that's going to be heard soon (I think), and if that gets struck down, hoo boy.
I really don't see it that way, most of us don't think the ruling was perfect, most of us are just happy it was left largely untouched. We are just having fun at all the years of the opposite party sniping us for past supreme court decisions as the ultimate law of the land and that their ruling are absolute and just, and that when a ruling finally goes the way we want it to (for the most part) we get to 'playfully' give the opposite group some of their own medicine. I still have a problem with that it was decided as a tax and not under the commerce clause (even if I too agree it is considered a tax), but as they say, beggars can't be choosers in this situation, and its fun to be on the winning side of it for once (Since I am fairly young I didn't see too many of the other more 'liberal' supreme court rulings, or what one considers an American liberal in this day and age
)I really don't see it that way, most of us don't think the ruling was perfect, most of us are just happy it was left largely untouched. We are just having fun at all the years of the opposite party sniping us for past supreme court decisions as the ultimate law of the land and that their ruling are absolute and just, and that when a ruling finally goes the way we want it to (for the most part) we get to 'playfully' give the opposite group some of their own medicine. I still have a problem with that it was decided as a tax and not under the commerce clause (even if I too agree it is considered a tax), but as they say, beggars can't be choosers in this situation, and its fun to be on the winning side of it for once (Since I am fairly young I didn't see too many of the other more 'liberal' supreme court rulings, or what one considers an American liberal in this day and age
Why would you the expansion of the commerce clause?
You make an excellent point. But, Supreme Court is still a stacked deck, Roberts made the decision he thought was right, and his opinion although part of the majority, was actually counter to the liberal justice's desire to reference the commerce clause for the mandate.
It's been repeated confirmed that the Democrats flat out lied about the financials of Obamacare and is currently costing far more than they projected (because they fenagled with the numbers so that the CBO would give them a favorable analysis). It isn't going to do anything to reduce the deficit in reality. If you have information to the contrary I'd love to see it.
eeeh....
Citizens United was kind of out of left field.
The issue brought before the court was whether or not the nonprofit corporation called Citizens United violated the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
The court instead decided to rule that corporations had a 1st amendment right to spend as much money as they want for political dissemination. Even though legally corporations are NOT defined as "associations of people," that was the basis for their ruling. The constitutinoality of McCain-Feingold was never questioned, and typically, the court can't just rule on something unless a dispute comes before them. It was judicial activism in every sense of the word.
Also, Gore vs. Bush was the court essentially putting a halt to a presidential recount because the country couldn't wait any longer (even though there was about a month left until the new president had to be inaugurated, iirc). Again, it was activism.
the ruling on PPACA? It was the court saying "Looks constitutional to us! Proceed!" That's anything but activism.
Are you referring to that article how it would cost $1.8 over it's 2nd decade? The one which said it was twice as expensie as obama said it would be, even though the cost presented was always for the 1st decade only?
Or are you referring to the "it's not a tax" statement that only was made because taxes are evil in America and so politicians lie through their teeth to avoid association with the boogeyman?
Republicans said this would force you to lose existing coverage, go to a doctor you didn't want to go to, force small businesses to go bankrupt (even though it excludes businesses under 50 employees IIRC), and kill your grandmother. And your big problem is that democrats said something was a penalty, not a tax? Give me a break
The Librarian
Banned
Show me these "repeated [confirmations]," and are you misremembering the health care debate? Democrats went to painstaking measures to make sure the bill did not add to the deficit. There wasn't any "fenagling" in the way which you described. The CBO sent the Democrats back to the drawing board several times, much to their dismay, while drafting the legislation.
The CBO said the bill will reduce the deficit in 2010. They've said the same thing in their most recent analysis of it. What effect SCOTUS' ruling on Medicaid has on the analysis has yet to be estimated (looking forward to it), but as of this moment, it's still on track to lead to a reduction in the deficit.
Key quote:
Romney forgot he was against the Dream Act for about an hour today.
his campaign's walk back:
Mitt Romney said:
his campaign's walk back:
Qwerty710710
a child left behind
How will obamacare will be repealed even if neocons control the senate,presidency, and house of rep. When all the democrats have to do is just filibusterer when they don't hit there 60 votes in the senate.
Theoretically, they're stating they could do it through reconciliation.
There's talk of Romney being able to exempt states from certain parts of it, and also Congress could attempt to de-fund it (no repeal) through reconciliation to effectively kill it. Won't matter though because Romney isn't going to be President.
Black Mamba
Member
Would be hard to pull that off since it affects deficits past 10 years out and decreases receipts.
TacticalFox88
Banned
How the hell are they not aware of his constant flip flopping? They seriously haven't sat down and told him "Look Mitt, here's some positions, take one and STICK with it.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Romney won't repeal Obamacare. Things like the pre-existing coverage and other parts of the ACA are things that his base is for (and he's promised "his healthcare" would include), and being at least more intelligent then a bag of bricks there's no way he doesn't know how literally disastrous repealing the mandate alone would be.
Short term disastrous, no way to escape from the responsibility of it.
For now, maybe. When we get much closer to the election his little etch-a-sketch act isn't going to work, especially in debates with Obama. It's also worked for now because the media has largely been giving him a pass. That should go away as we get close to November, too.
They can kill the tax without 60. They could also do what you guys have been clamoring for the past few years, filibuster reform!
lol, you think Romney would veto a bill to kill ObamaCare if it came to his desk? That's insane.
- Status