Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 07:22:22 AM
713394 Posts in 53059 Topics by 7725 Members
Latest Member: wibwao
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Supreme Court Hearings on the Affordable Health Care Act (PT) « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Supreme Court Hearings on the Affordable Health Care Act (PT)  (Read 10150 times)
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2591
Posts: 15182


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« on: March 27, 2012, 06:24:18 AM »

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/26/10866512-court-signals-it-will-decide-constitutionality-of-health-care-mandate

Today is the second day of hearings on the Obama administration's magnum opus, the Affordable Health Care Act.  Arguments will center on the primary objection that many have raised to this bill from the get-go: Does the U.S. Constitution give Congress the power to force citizens to purchase a commercial product?

  This is a huge case, not just because of the Health Care Act itself, but because of the precedent it will set.  If Congress has the power to force citizens into commercial contracts, then for all practical purposes, there will be virtually no limits on Congressional power henceforth.  At least, that is the great fear of many Conservatives and Libertarians.  However you feel about the government's role in health care, I think anyone should be able to recognize the dangers of encroachment here - what power has the government ever refused to wield, once the Court says it has the right to wield it?

  My concern is WHY Associate Justice Elaina Kagan is even being allowed to vote on this issue?  She was the Solicitor General for the Obama administration before being placed on the court; her JOB was to help compose the law, and to write legal briefs defending the Constitutionality of Obamacare.  There is not even a pretense of objectivity.  Again, the old double standard comes into play - were she a conservative justice appointed by a conservative President after being solicitor general in charge of preparing briefs on a pending case, there would be a national hue and cry in the media for her to abstain from voting.  As it is - ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC - hardly a peep.  If it were not for those "right wing hate mongers" at FOX and on talk radio, most folks would not even know of her involvement in crafting and defending the Affordable Health Care Act.

  Obviously, I'm hoping the Court will strike this thing down.  It is a $2 trillion monstrosity.  But then, I'm one of those "right wing hate mongers."  What do YOU think?
Logged

"I shall smite you in the nostrils with a rod of iron, and wax your spleen with Efferdent!!"
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #1 on: March 27, 2012, 10:48:45 AM »

It is a landmark Supreme Court event to be sure.

I certainly believe that healthcare providence by the government goes against the spirit of the Constitution, but all social programs tend to use the general welfare clause as justification for the program. The issue of focus, and of greatest importance, is that of encroachment, the government requiring citizens to purchase something. This is a key element, because it goes beyond the government providing healthcare.

What I find most interesting about this case is NOT the knee-jerk accusation of socialism that comes from the conservative rank and file. No. This case is demonstrating with stark clarity the extent of the polarization that has taken the place of free thought, the ability of people to use their reason to dissect and make sense of a seemingly complex issue.

Obama’s Healthcare Reform Bill was an enormous mistake, but if people take the time to understand the context of it, they will see just how confused a nation we have become. A very large portion of the motivation for the bill in the first place was that so many other countries have socialized healthcare, some of them doing it successfully, so why not the U.S.? It was basically multi-national peer pressure. But socialism is not at play here, but corporatism. Corporatism is arguably more destructive because there is no clear distinction between government and commercial practices.

Normally, if the government creates a social program that provides something free to the people, there is taxation to pay for it, and the richest people tend to pay for it because they are taxed more, something that tends to make socialist-minded people very happy. But in this case, that’s not what’s at issue. The issue appears to be that Americans are being required to purchase something from a commerical company. This means that here is a proposed government program that would actually be covered evenly by all the people, rather than paid for by the richest 1% for the use of the other 99%, because each person would be paying for their own. This actually benefits the richest 1%, and takes even more money from the pockets of the 99%, these two “have/have not” groups we keep hearing so much about.

You would think that a law that costs the average working American rather than the rich that would normally pay for a government program through taxation would enrage the left. But it doesn’t. The polarization I speak of is so pervasive and complete now that Democrats are actually lining up in favor of a law that burdens its own supposed constituency, and benefits the evil corporations that they supposedly despise. Meanwhile, the Republicans are too busy with their usual “socialism” finger-pointing to realize that there is nothing socialist about it. It’s almost fascist.

Which brings me to my final point. In the shortsighted and limited view of the traditional left/right political spectrum, one can only go one of two ways. On the extreme left you have communism, and on the extreme right you have fascism. Both of them are essentially the same thing, they just take two different approaches to get there. The government is polarized to extremes, but are essentially working toward the same end, and the American people, no matter which of the two sides they stand on, are unwittingly supporting it. Meanwhile, those of us that think for ourselves and can actually see it going on are natually labeled as kooks.

This case, and the resulting behavior by the warring mobs, only encourages me to remain a kook. It’s lonely, but liberating.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 3100
Posts: 26772


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 27, 2012, 11:41:34 AM »


  My concern is WHY Associate Justice Elaina Kagan is even being allowed to vote on this issue?  She was the Solicitor General for the Obama administration before being placed on the court; her JOB was to help compose the law, and to write legal briefs defending the Constitutionality of Obamacare.  There is not even a pretense of objectivity.


There is no authority higher than her who can request her to be removed. At the Supreme Court level all recusals are voluntary. There are two common causes for recusal: the Justice has a financial stake in the outcome (e.g. they own stock in a company appearing before them) or a family member or close personal friend is one one of the parties before them. However, a judge or Justice is also supposed to disqualify themselves in the following case: "Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy." [28 USC 455(b)(3)]. This would seem to apply squarely to Kagan's case. It appears that she should recuse herself, but no one has the authority to force her to. (The other Supreme Court Justices never pressure one of their own---at least, not publicly and I doubt they do privately either).

There are also calls for Justice Thomas to recuse himself because his wife is supposedly an outspoken opponent of the plan.

I have no personal prediction about how the case will turn out. My sense is it probably should be ruled unconstitutional, but I am not really up to date on the arguments.
Logged

I'll take you places the hand of man has not yet set foot...
Frank81
Guest
« Reply #3 on: March 27, 2012, 11:58:24 AM »

Well, I saw an unbiased  analysis from Matt Lauer and Rachael Maddow this  morning for about 2 minutes, as much as I could take, essentially  it was the 'conservative' court could  declare  it's independence   by walking in lockstep with the Obama plan.  Lookingup  I have looked into this issue for years and  over many nations, and have come  to these conclusions. ALL health care systems on earth STINK, they will not save you, cure you in most cases.  If the Govt runs it, you will have long waits and  'free'  isn't worth much if you're  dead.  If it's  privately run, you may end up paying for the rest of your life or end up bankrupt and in debt, but, will most likely physically survive. If it's a combination of both, you'll get mixed results. STAY as healthy as possible, avoid doctors and health care systems like the plague, learn as  much as possible about your specific body from complete  physicals. Good Luck, G-D, Allah and Mickey Mouse help you as really that's all you have in reality.
Logged
tracy
Inventor of the Turnip Twaddler and
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 309
Posts: 3144



« Reply #4 on: March 27, 2012, 01:12:25 PM »

I hope they strike it down....completely. I resent Congress forcing me to purchase a product against my better judgement and whether I want it or no. This is,in my opinion,pure business-driven legislation to benefit them mostly. I don't need a bunch of snobbish "I-KNOW-BETTER-THAN-YOU" jerks telling me I have to have this to get their kick-backs. There's no way you could convince me they're thinking of me as a poor,working stiff in need when that @#$%! Clinton wants us to pay a fine for not having it.
Do a huge overhaul on the insurance companies if you really want to help us. Set limits on how much procedures can cost,especially these fatcat specialists.
This system could be fixed....you just need some folks with brains and guts.
Logged

Yes,I'm fine....as long as I don't look too closely.
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #5 on: March 27, 2012, 03:36:48 PM »

I don’t mean to s**t on anyone’s point, because I think the bill should most certainly be stricken down. However, in the interest of presenting fair information, I can’t go along with the claim that socialized medicine has been a dismal failure in all cases.

The U.S. currently ranks 36th in life expentancy around the world, and has been falling for some time. I checked and almost every country that outranks us has at least partial healthcare provided by the government. #1 is Japan, who provides 70% of most vital health services. #2 is Hong Kong. Australia is #5. Canada is #12. The U.K. ranked first in quality of care in more than one study. I don’t believe in socialized medicine, nor do I believe that the U.S. can afford it. However, I’m not going to ignore factual data. Life expectancy is one of the most accurate and easily identifiable ways in which a country’s general health can be guaged. It’s also one of the most difficult to fudge or shade with political agendas.

The healthcare system in the U.S. is flawed. It was flawed before Obama’s bill. Obamacare is certainly not the solution, so I am completely agreed on that point. However, if anybody is going to trash the healthcare systems of other countries as utter failures, it’s kind of difficult to dispute life expectancy. If you’re going to oppose socialized medicine, I suggest doing so in ways that make sense.

I don’t dispute the positives of socialized medicine simply because there are too many examples of them. The quality of care argument is, at best, undeterminable. Instead I choose to focus on something that truly matters: innovation. Healthcare innovation can only operate well in a system where the costs of research and development can be recooped. If there is no break-even point, then there is no development. That is a simple economic reality that can be easily demonstrated.   
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
lester1/2jr
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1109
Posts: 12271



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 27, 2012, 05:20:33 PM »

the mandate is unconstitutional. This whole project was doomed from the start, it sunk obamas presidency history will show.
Logged
Flick James
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 489
Posts: 4642


Honorary Bastard of Arts


« Reply #7 on: March 27, 2012, 06:01:33 PM »

the mandate is unconstitutional. This whole project was doomed from the start, it sunk obamas presidency history will show.

Well, yes, it is unconstitutional. I find it funny (and scary) that the justification being used is the general welfare clause. That's how ALL government policies that cost taxpayer money are justified, except for what directly enforces our rights, like police. I mean, it's not a given that the government needs to provide a fire department. It is under the general welfare clause that such services are justified. It's the same thing with national parks, and not too many people object to that.

Now, whatever one's stance is on socialized medicine, the real issue here is madating something that should be done by individual election. There is no justification for that. Some people say that basic healthcare is a right. It isn't, but let's argue for a moment that it is. Having the right to something does not mean that you are required to do it. We have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean that every American is required to buy a gun or given on by the government. We have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean that we are required to start a newspaper. That's what the real issue is. I can't imagine the Supreme Court actually establishing it as constitutional.
Logged

I don't always talk about bad movies, but when I do, I prefer badmovies.org
lester1/2jr
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1109
Posts: 12271



WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 27, 2012, 06:08:29 PM »

all the general walfare clause says is that the policies are to be for the general population rather than specific groups. it's not the thing called welfare.
Logged
Frank81
Guest
« Reply #9 on: March 27, 2012, 09:15:52 PM »

I don’t mean to s**t on anyone’s point, because I think the bill should most certainly be stricken down. However, in the interest of presenting fair information, I can’t go along with the claim that socialized medicine has been a dismal failure in all cases.

The U.S. currently ranks 36th in life expentancy around the world, and has been falling for some time. I checked and almost every country that outranks us has at least partial healthcare provided by the government. #1 is Japan, who provides 70% of most vital health services. #2 is Hong Kong. Australia is #5. Canada is #12. The U.K. ranked first in quality of care in more than one study. I don’t believe in socialized medicine, nor do I believe that the U.S. can afford it. However, I’m not going to ignore factual data. Life expectancy is one of the most accurate and easily identifiable ways in which a country’s general health can be guaged. It’s also one of the most difficult to fudge or shade with political agendas.

The healthcare system in the U.S. is flawed. It was flawed before Obama’s bill. Obamacare is certainly not the solution, so I am completely agreed on that point. However, if anybody is going to trash the healthcare systems of other countries as utter failures, it’s kind of difficult to dispute life expectancy. If you’re going to oppose socialized medicine, I suggest doing so in ways that make sense.

I don’t dispute the positives of socialized medicine simply because there are too many examples of them. The quality of care argument is, at best, undeterminable. Instead I choose to focus on something that truly matters: innovation. Healthcare innovation can only operate well in a system where the costs of research and development can be recooped. If there is no break-even point, then there is no development. That is a simple economic reality that can be easily demonstrated.   


I don't know if it should stricken down, I'm not a lawyer, and I have about as much confidence in Law as I have in Medicine.  Wink 

I will say this, statistics can be used to fudge an argument, in the case above, in favor of more govt. control of one's health. I know that's  not your intention, but, I've seen those statistics many times used in favor of govt. control. The statistics you state are mostly from nations with highly controlled  immigration and population control, unlike the tens of millions of mostly already in poor health folks who flood the USA every year. Also, the 'life expectancy' says  nothing of the quality of  living longer and suffering with medications, machines. I could quote statistics like how the #1 life expectancy people of Japan have a much higher death rate of stomach cancer than the USA or how 'wealthy' Canadians cross the border to get procedures they would otherwise  have to wait for leading to their life expectancy being higher? But, I just don't see as  life expectancy being all that important as  much as quality of living longer.

One's  health should be an individuals  responsibility first, not anyone’s Govt. I had one 'Mommy and Daddy', thank you, and the only time I gave up my independence was for what  I thought was a  higher cause, serving in the US Armed Forces.  There has to be some sort of system, regrettably, but, like anything else out of one's hands it should be limited to when one can't help themselves any longer and not to just die in the street. The problem with modern healthcare goes way beyond funding and the root is  too centered on after the fact costly illness. Finally, medical intervention at all costs  to keep someone alive is insane. We are ALL going to die, we have to face it , no amount of  intervention  will stop it, many times prolonging it is  much worse than entering eternal rest. 
Logged
indianasmith
Archeologist, Theologian, Elder Scrolls Addict, and a
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 2591
Posts: 15182


A good bad movie is like popcorn for the soul!


« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2012, 10:51:07 PM »

I think a big part of America's lesser longevity rates has to do with our inordinate fondness for massive quantities of delicious, fattening foods!  If we ate sushi, rice, and kelp in the volumes that the Japanese do, we'd live 10 years longer.

Now where's my cheeseburger? BounceGiggle
Logged

"I shall smite you in the nostrils with a rod of iron, and wax your spleen with Efferdent!!"
bob
I survived Bucky Larson
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 732
Posts: 8915


Torgo watches you masterbate!


« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2012, 11:29:20 PM »

I really disliked the Affordable Health Care Act simply because I do not think that any government should force their citizens to pay for health insurance
Logged

Kubrick, Nolan, Tarantino, Wan, Iñárritu, Scorsese, Chaplin, Abrams, Wes Anderson, Gilliam, Kurosawa - the elite



I believe in the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
lester1/2jr
B-Movie Kraken
*****

Karma: 1109
Posts: 12271



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 28, 2012, 07:43:15 AM »

Another problem is how theres corn and corn syrup in everything. I saw this documentary "King Corn". Everyone knows FDR paid farmers not to grow things so the price would rise. the next guy thuoght that was so bad that he reversed it and paid farmers TO grow things. Of course, this also affected the market because it made corn cheaper than other things. Now cows eat corn, which makesthe meat much fattier and so on.  prices are supposed to convey information, let the natural price of corn occur.
Logged
Zapranoth
Eye of Sauron and
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 256
Posts: 1405



« Reply #13 on: March 28, 2012, 10:09:27 AM »

learn as  much as possible about your specific body from complete  physicals. Good Luck, G-D, Allah and Mickey Mouse help you as really that's all you have in reality.

Sorry.  I don't know enough law to meaningfully add to the very interesting and insightful commentary that is happening in this thread, but I can interject one thing:  routine physical exams, of themselves, have not been shown to change outcomes for people.   There are questions and then answers that sometimes come up from contact with doctors at general physical exams, and once in a while I find something really useful to find now vs later (a melanoma, a significant heart murmur, a sign of cancer, the like) that makes a difference for someone.  But even clinical breast exams have not been shown to change cancer outcomes.   It may just mean inadequate and poorly done research on the subject though.   TeddyR

Carry on with the excellent legal commentary.  I've learned some important things!  Thank you all for what you have written so far.  I am watching and wringing my hands. 
Logged
Rev. Powell
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 3100
Posts: 26772


Click on that globe for 366 Weird Movies


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2012, 11:37:22 AM »

I don't know enough on this particular issue to meaningfully add anything either. I haven't found the time to read the briefs and the lower court rulings. Anyone who's interested in the primary sources can find lots of links here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/PPAACA.aspx.
Logged

I'll take you places the hand of man has not yet set foot...
Pages: [1] 2 3
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Other Topics  |  Off Topic Discussion  |  Supreme Court Hearings on the Affordable Health Care Act (PT) « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.