Quantcast

Comments about ‘Supreme Court prepares to take on health care law’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Nov. 13 2011 12:06 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

What they should be deciding is if it's constitutional to let insurance companies overcharge thier customers to pay for those that don't have insurance.

BobP
Port Alice, B.C.

The conservative majority on the court looks good for a decision on the only thing Obama pushed through in 3 years so far. Anybody but Obama is the key word.,

Furry1993
Clearfield, UT

to BobP | 10:00 a.m. Nov. 13, 2011

Anybody but Obama is the key word.

---------------------

Also anyone but Romney, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Bacman, Santorum and Paul. I could not, in good conscience, vote for any of them. I care too much about my country to inflict any of them on it.

Cate
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Bob P : may I respectfully remind you of just a few other things the President has accomplished ?
-Signed a nuclear arms deal with Russia that will reduce both countries' arsenal by a third
-Created a new global nonproliferation initiative to keeep nuclear arms out of the hands of terrorists (an idea put forth by Reagan years before)
-Gave the mission objective and command to kill Osama Bin Laden
-Expanded troop levels in the military and ordered an overhaul of wasteful spending in the Pentagon, including the cancellation of the expensive F-22 program
-Signed into law a financial reform bill to prevent some of the same abuses that got us into this mess in the first place (including the expensive subsidy to banks acting as middlemen in student loans)
-Expanded the CHIPS program to cover another 4 million kids who have no healthcare
-Got rid at long last of the unfair DADT program which took away thousands of our most needed Arabic language translators from the military, (not to mention the disrespect DADT imposed upon some of our nation's brave soldiers)
_I could go on, but space is limited. Check for yourself how much Utah received in stimulous funding.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

The Court's decision will determine whether there still remains a chance for liberty to survive or whether we have chosen tyranny! Institutionalizing evil (abortion, gay marraige, war)and legitimizing compulsion (Doing away with God given individual and states'rights)will only increase suffering. Obama Care is not about care; it is about power.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

The issue the court must ultimately address is whether we have free agency with the consequence of inequality, or whether that choice is taken from us in favor of forcing the same circumstance on everyone.

Despite the conservative court we have, it's times like this I wish Rehnquist was still on board.

Cate
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

I am glad that the Supreme Court will have the chance to deliberate this very contentious issue. I, for one, am glad that the Court has representatives of several judicial points of view since I think this strengthens rather than dimishes the final decision. Democracy (or a republic, if you prefer) very much needs the diversity of various points of view to create a fabric of basic freedoms and flexibilty. Conversely, freedom suffers when only one point of view dominates to the point of disallowing any fresh new resolutions to problems. I believe there is a big difference between taking a principled stand according to one's beliefs on the one hand, and adhering to political orthodoxy as though party is a religion on the other. We see too much of that religious orthodoxy in the middle East and other places, where it can be paralyzing. While I do not see the Affordable Care Act as perfect, I can see what reasoning lies behind the efforts to contain healthcare costs. It is undoubtably one of the great challenges for our country, but I still believe it can be solved (perhaps as a states issue) without demonizing those who have tried.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

It's funny how people want the moochers to pay their fair share, and then when a system makes them do so via the mandate, they oppose it... and then support Romney. If Obama supported puppies Republicans would suddenly become kitten fans.

A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

The core issue of Obamacare is whether the Constitution gives the right for politicians to FORCE Americans to buy a product.

And that answer is a resounding "NO!"

If politicians can make us buy health care then what will stop them from making it a law to buy a new pair of tennis shoes?

Or how about a new car every 5 years?, all in the interest of spurring the American economy, of course. It's good for the country, you know....

The point is that if we allow Congress to be able to make us buy a product then what will stop them from forcing us to buy any other product? Answer: absolutely nothing.

The "Commerce Clause" doesn't even begin to justify this. It's not even close. Have you read the Commerce Clause? I have. It's less than 20 words long. Google it yourself.

And BTW, car insurance is different: if you don't want to have to buy insurance, you retain the option of not buying a car.

This is no such 'opt out' clause in Obamacare. Obamacare = unconstitutional.

November 2012: Our Last Chance To Save America

A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

I'm curious....

Does the fact that Democrats wrote the Obamacare law in such a way that Congress and the President do NOT have to use Obamacare themselves make anyone else out there want to vomit?, or is that blatant unfairness just ticking me off individually?

I'd like to hear from those that it ticks off, too, as well as from anyone that is OK with this....I'm particularly interested to hear from any liberal who supports Obamacare to hear how they justify this hypocritcal snobbery.

TRUTH
Salt Lake City, UT

@Cate...

You forgot Obama's single greatest accomplishment:

He killed 2,000,000 JOBS!

freewill
duchesne, UT

Is anyone foolish enough to believe government mandated health insurance be struckdown or repealed? Ron Paul is our only hope, Government is the reason for skyrocketing health care costs. Before gov. involvement, docters went to peoples houses, The Bush congress appropriated millions of dollars to universities to not train doctors.Obamacare Romneycare, Whats the difference?

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

atl134: you stated, "It's funny how people want the moochers to pay their fair share, and then when a system makes them do so via the mandate, they oppose it"

I don't get what the problem is here. Sure, I want people to do their fair share, I want people to be honest, I want people to be kind human beings and treat everyone with respect. But there is a monumental difference between wanting what's right and forcing people to do it. While I believe that all who are able should give a portion of their own resources and time to help those in need, I absolutely do not believe in requiring it of them or forcing it out of them. That isn't funny, that's a belief in freedom. Do you not share this same belief?

Freedom-In-Danger
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

Ron Paul is NOT our only hope. I really wish people would quit making him and Obama out to be our savior.

The best person we can trust to save ourselves from any government is ourselves.

scotu
South Jordan, UT

@ A voice of Reason,

Hmmmm.....that sounds like a war that was fought a long, long time ago in a galaxy that was far, far away - you know, the one WITHOUT Princess Leia that involved a "third of the host of heaven"? :)

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, Utah

I really don't see how this will lower health care costs. Now that everybody is required to haven't, wouldn't all the insurance companies take advantage and increase their prices even more? I agree that health care costs are way too high, but this mandate is just plain stupid.

The constitution says that all powers not specifically given to the federal government are given to the state governments. Therefore, unless there is a clause specifically giving the federal government power to require everyone to have health care, it is unconstitutional.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

scotu,

I personally believe that this 'war' is the root of all of our political issues.

People confuse the equality as defined in our constitution, being 'equal before the law' as meaning Marxist equality and equal entitlement. However the constitution protects freedom equally across the board. No one's free agency is more or less important than another's. Governments should preserve our right to freedom equally. When this is not done, I don't believe peace can exist. (as in D&C 134)

"Equality of Outcome" vs "Equality of Opportunity" is what many in the philosophical world call it. I personally don't like the use of the word "opportunity" as many argue the two equality's are the same, and many argue they stand in contrast. If it was 'outcome vs agency' then the confusion wouldn't exist.

Unless things are 50/50 equal, an inequality will exist. As long as equality is the premise, it must be forced or voluntarily given to be achieved. If free some won't give, so inequality will exist unless forced. But then the question is 'which do you prefer?' Equality by force or Freedom with inequality? Note: I've also argued on here that equality is a facade anyway. That if given the same measure, covetousness will still exist. If one takes my 'share' then equality ceases to exist anyway.

freewill
duchesne, UT

and you have done an exellent job Mr. freedom in danger, If we could restore constitutional Government, We wouldnt be arguing about this today.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

This is the same crowd that went indignant as to immigration. See where that got Arizona State Senator Pierce.

Freedom-In-Danger
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

freewill: now THAT is something I completely agree with!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments