Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 16, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide





Paul Robeson: A Life


Truthdig Bazaar
Love and Consequences

Love and Consequences

By Margaret B. Jones
$16.47

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

High Court Kicks Off Health Care Hearings

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Mar 26, 2012
Adam Fagan / Rights reserved

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court launched a three-day deliberation session on the timely (well, for Campaign 2012, anyway) and controversial topic of the health care overhaul that President Obama oversaw and signed into law in 2010. On the program for the first day was an opening debate about whether the court had the authority to hear the case at this point, which, The New York Times reported, was not a point of contention between the opposing factions involved in the case.

The New York Times:

The case’s main event — arguments over the constitutionality of the law’s requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty — will not come until Tuesday. On Monday, the justices considered the Anti-Injunction Act, which says that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.” In other words, people who object to taxes must pay first and litigate later.

That is so, said Justice Stephen G. Breyer, because “taxes are, for better or worse, the life’s blood of the government.”

The first penalties for violating the health care law’s individual mandate do not kick in until 2014, and they must be paid on federal tax returns in April 2015. That means, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., ruled last year, that courts are for now powerless to decide the law’s constitutionality.

Read more

 

 

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Marian Griffith, March 28, 2012 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is very worrying that Scalia either does not understand the principle behind insurance, or that he does understand but is disingeneous or even dishonest.

Neither is a quality you are looking for in one of the 9 most important men and women in the country who have the power to overrule congress and president and can dictate the course of the nation for decades to come.

Report this
Hulk2008's avatar

By Hulk2008, March 28, 2012 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment

Justice Scalias so called broccoli critique is not only hackneyed by now, its
actually a bad analogy. Unlike health care where treatment is done even if
not paid for, food including broccoli is NOT handed out without payment. 
But lets give Scalia the benefit of perhaps suggesting that food gets the
same approach…........

SO lets all go to the locaL grocery and demand free food…...if we refuse to
pay the grocer can just spread our costs on to all the other shoppers who
do pay.

Report this
Hulk2008's avatar

By Hulk2008, March 28, 2012 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment

Justice Scalias so called broccoli critique is not only hackneyed by now, its
actually a bad analogy. Unlike health care where treatment is done even if
not paid for, food including broccoli is NOT handed out without payment. 
But lets give Scalia the benefit of perhaps suggesting that food gets the
same approach…........

SO lets all go to the locaL grocery and demand free food…...if we refuse to
pay the grocer can just spread our costs on to all the other shoppers who
do pay.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 27, 2012 at 2:06 pm Link to this comment

Surfboy, - “If I were to say, “I don’t want black women to succeed and will do things to stop them from succeeding, because they might take away my son’s chance to get a good job; then, that would be “invidiously” racist of me.  Understand?”

YES.  Not only do I now understand, I agree. - A few months back I was discussing some of these same issues with a young black female college student working at my favorite coffee shop.  When the subject you highlight came up she said, YES…, she happens to LOVE fried chicken AND watermelon!’  In turn I told her I happen to know how to square dance.  We both howled laughing…LOL

We’re still not coming together on how the term ‘Obama-Care’ is a form of racism of any kind.  Invidious or otherwise.  Can you see how I come to the conclusion that you’re taking an unrelated issue, whether it be health-care or mandates, and placing a Black Face front and center and assuming that same black face is the fundamental issue in the minds of a great many people?  I’ve never heard the term and assumed the same. 

I am honestly unaware of anyone who hears the term Obama-Care and is carried off in state of happiness or sorrow over anything that has to do with race or race relations in America.  Such terms are used daily.  Thousands of them.  The very same types of terms have been used for centuries of Caucasian administrations.  Nothing about these catch-phrases changes because you’re ever cognizant of a black man as President of the United States.

We agree on much but arrive from different directions. 

BTW:  You’re just about the most adult individual I have yet to encounter on TruthDig.  I can’t tell you how this is a pleasure.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 27, 2012 at 1:09 pm Link to this comment

It seems the government’s case may be in trouble.  That is if the questions from the Justices during oral arguments today are any indication.

It seems to me if ‘Obama Care’, as it is commonly known, is struck-down the government will look very different the following day.  It’s not hard to see why everything about the Affordable Care Act has far reaching implications into countless issues.

Report this

By M L, March 27, 2012 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why are we debating the term used for this legislation? This legislation was simply a gift to the big private insurance companies and big pharma. Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers, Wall Street and their lobbyist wrote this legislation. Do you really think Presidents have this much power????? Read Jim Marrs book “Rule by Secrecy” to find out about the real movers and shakers. Marrs states an invisible government made up of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberger, the CIA and even the Vatican collude to start and stop wars, manipulate stock markets and interst rates, maintain class distinctions and even sensor the six o’clock news.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 27, 2012 at 9:06 am Link to this comment

Surfboy, - “Does that change the import of the comment?”

-

I’m uncertain of your question. 

You begin the thread by stating how the use of the term, Obama-Care, is mean-spirited.  You go on to say the legislation is being pursued for the benefit of the proletariat.  I’m not sure what that means to you.  Can you expound on this?

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 27, 2012 at 8:21 am Link to this comment

thethirdman,

The Obama Administration (I’m sorry, can I say “Obama Administration” without sounding racist?) uses the term ‘Obama care’ itself.  How is this racist language?

It seems to me you’re attributing any and all criticism of the current president to racism. I mean this sincerely.  Don’t we have enough problems without inciting problems that aren’t there?

Report this

By thethirdman, March 27, 2012 at 7:38 am Link to this comment

Surfboy is absolutely correct.  The obvious names like The Kenyan and barack
HUSSEIN obama are not even masked hatred of the other.  But even when those
troglodytes snarl their favorite “witty” appellations like The Socialist or POSOTUS or
Odumbo the racial vehemence drips so thick from their fleshy chops one would
have to be to creationist to miss the racial implications. 
Surfboy is also correct in stating that it is not what is said (as the president in no
way could be accused of socialism by anyone with a 5th grade understanding of
the term); it is how these names are uttered.  The palpable glee derived from such
utterances is the most nauseating part.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 27, 2012 at 6:24 am Link to this comment

Surfboy - “O’Bama Care is a dog whistle call to trick the swamp and mountain people into rejecting it based on “invidious” racial prejudice. ” 

-

But, yet, nowhere do you imply that using the term, Obama Care, is racist? 

Also, and I’m just curious, why always the quotes around invidious?  Isn’t racism invidious itself?  Your use of the word seems, well, redundant.

Report this
IMax's avatar

By IMax, March 26, 2012 at 6:11 pm Link to this comment

Surfboy, - “O’Bama Care is a dog whistle call to trick the swamp and mountain people into rejecting it based on ‘invidious’ racial prejudice.

-

With all due regard, I honestly don’t see how you arrive at this.  I agree the Affordable Health Care act could rightly be called Kennedy Care.  It likely would be if Kennedy were president and he made the legislation part of his (Lilly white wink) signature platform.  Isn’t the term “Obama Care” being used in the very same manner?  Even the Obama administration has accepted the term into its campaign language.  Yet you see this as racism.

Also, I think if we were to both look into the term’s origins we’d find that, like most slogans of the sort, it began in the media and stuck.  It resonated. 

The president’s opposition has adopted the term, as any opposition has in countless campaigns throughout history.  As a highly recognized, resonant, and accepted term which describes, in a phrase, an issue its base is opposed to.  For some it’s the mandates.  For others it’s socialized medicine.  These are not issue associated with pigmentation in the minds of most people.

I honestly don’t see the term Obama-Care as a code phrase for We Hate Black People

Help me out here.  Help me to understand.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.