Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AmbulanceDriver on June 28, 2012, 10:20:22 AM
-
:facepalm:
Well, time to get some people in office that will repeal this POS....
[barf]
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/how-will-supreme-court-rule-on-health-care-law/?hpt=hp_t1
Here's another link:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_HEALTH_CARE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-28-10-17-22
ETA: Apparently John Roberts sided with the 4 liberal judges on the court...
[barf]
-
Oh crap.
Well, time to get some people in office that will repeal this POS
Yes, please.
-
"Well, time to get some people in office that will repeal this POS"
Nice thought, but since there are no longer any true Republicans, just Democrats and Democrats lite, it will never happen.
-
AG, my hope is that this will piss people off enough to overwhelmingly put conservatives in both houses, so that even if we get a RINO (Romney) in the WH, we can get rid of this crap.
-
Just remember: we must elect Obama to appoint more judges like Roberts.
-
All eyes were on Kennedy . . . and Roberts does this. :facepalm: [barf]
Wonder how the markets will react . . .
-
Wonder how the markets will react . . .
Only down slightly now due to European news. I think we'll have to wait till the full ruling and implications are out there to really see how the market reacts.
-
"Well, time to get some people in office that will repeal this POS"
Nice thought, but since there are no longer any true Republicans, just Democrats and Democrats lite, it will never happen.
Oddly enough, Democrats say the same thing about their party. "All we do is get Republicans and Republicans who call themselves Democrats!"
I'd say both had the right of it.
-
Ah well, the USA will runout of money by the time its fully implemented anyway. :facepalm:
-
Complex decision. It explicitly states that the mandate is a tax, and because thus within the feds scope of power. Some are saying this will be a big hit for the liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Not sure if I buy it, but we'll see.
-
Complex decision. It explicitly states that the mandate is a tax, and because thus within the feds scope of power.
I'm confused and possibly "misrememberring", but I thought the Dems were originally arguing that Obamacare was NOT a tax?
-
I'm confused and possibly "misrememberring", but I thought the Dems were originally arguing that Obamacare was NOT a tax?
They did. Ruling states that the mandate is in fact a tax and may be permissible because of it.
-
I'm confused and possibly "misrememberring", but I thought the Dems were originally arguing that Obamacare was NOT a tax?
They were against it being a tax before they were for it.
-
They did. Ruling states that the mandate is in fact a tax and may be permissible because of it.
I am reading through the opinion now, but it appears as if the fine=tax argument is what convinced the Court that this was within the scope of powers of Congress, which has the authority to levy taxes. So it would appear that if you want this repealed, look more to Congress than the Oval Office.
-
They did. Ruling states that the mandate is in fact a tax and may be permissible because of it.
Not to jump the gun, but them defining it as a tax might be a good thing in the long run as it might apply to the interpretation of other socialist junk they attempt to pass in the future. At least in the vein of "lemonade out of lemons". Maybe.
-
The SCOTUS has announced, yes, the federal government DOES have the right to make you buy products. I so wish I had the money to buy enough politicians to make it a law that all Americans must buy a Chia pet, EVERY YEAR, or face high fines. Hell, if I could buy a POTUS and enough judges, I'd make it "Proof of purchase of a Chia pet, every year, or FIVE YEARS IN JAIL, plus being tattooed with a rainbow unicorn waving an AK-47 across your entire back"
I have a feeling people still would not get the message.
-
"Well, time to get some people in office that will repeal this POS"
Nice thought, but since there are no longer any true Republicans, just Democrats and Democrats lite, it will never happen.
Romney has promised to repeal Obamacare. Now it is up to the voters to give him a kongress that will help him rather than fight him.
I am completly utterly disgusted by this. I am ashamed to be an American -- and fearful of what else can and will be done to us.
-
If the spin is true and this was a crafty move by Roberts to limit Commerce Clause abuse, it would be almost a break even, kinda sorta. But I rate the chances of that as about as likely as Roberts secretly being Batman.
-
Wouldn't finding it unconstitutional under the commerce clause have had the same effect of limiting commerce clause abuse? I guess I don't see how saying it's legal under the taxation clause gets us any more protection from it as finding it unconstitutional altogether.
-
Wouldn't finding it unconstitutional under the commerce clause have had the same effect of limiting commerce clause abuse? I guess I don't see how saying it's legal under the taxation clause gets us any more protection from it as finding it unconstitutional altogether.
Me either, just reporting the attempted spin.
From the SCOTUS liveblog
10:32
Amy Howe:
In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.
-
Here's the actual ruling. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
-
Soooooo... the Congress manages to pass it by insisting it's NOT a tax, and SCOTUS upholds it by saying it IS a tax. The Constitution means nothing, any more, as a check on the power, scope, and reach of .gov. It only serves as a set of flimsy pretexts to license whatever action might serve any social utility whatsoever.
Another nail in the coffin lid of the Republic.
-
I guess I don't see how saying it's legal under the taxation clause gets us any more protection from it as finding it unconstitutional altogether.
I see it not so much as giving us protection as I do shining a flashlight into a dark corner to expose cockroaches. I doubt this will do much to reduce the effect of Obamacare, but if "they" had to start the process all over again now, and be upfront that it was in fact a tax, it might not receive the support that it did as "not a tax". Sheer speculation on my part. I think it will still be a good while before we see the full fallout and results.
-
Thanks Balog. Was curious to read the dissent...
-
From the ruling...
(b)
Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy healthinsurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. Cf. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U. S. 20, 36–37. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful.
Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress’s choice of language—stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance.
See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169–174. Pp. 35–40.
-
Hold it a minute...it says that if you don't have insurance, you'll pay the tax, and it's irrelevent whether you willfully go without or are unable to get it? So, if I lose my job, and therefore my insurance, my taxes would go up? Whose bright idea was that? (Don't answer.)
You know, I'm an eternal optimist. I believe in America. For the most part, I believed that the government was not bad, and that most government workers are good people doing their jobs to support their families. I believed that the flaw in government was career politicians, who saw their job in terms of doing what needs to be done to keep the job, and not necessarily doing what's right.
Not sure what I believe anymore...
-
stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct.
That's actually a little scary to me. How is it different than "carbon credits"? "Sure, pollute all you want, just pay us for the privilege."
It seems like this could be twisted in a lot of future legislation where the government can tell you that you need to do "X", or else, "Hey, you can just pay us money not to". One would think this would even get the Dems in an uproar, since legally being able to "ignore" a law would be based on wealth and ability to pay.
-
stating that individuals “shall” obtain insurance or pay a “penalty”—does not require reading §5000A as punishing unlawful conduct.
how the [censoredcensored] bleepin' [censored] can you *not* read "buy this or pay a penalty" as [censored] punishing [censored] unlawful [censored] conduct?
"Buy insurance!"
"No!"
"Then pay a penalty!"
"Is not buying insurance illegal?"
"No."
"Then why do I have to pay a penalty????????????"
Oh man... this is doing bad things to my blood pressure today.... And pretty sure I'm gonna have an ulcer by the end of the day.
Hey, can I charge the supreme court for my healthcare costs related to their [censored] ruling? After all, it's not unlawful, just a "penalty".
[barf]
-
Scary bit of Roberts opinion...
Federal funds received through the Medicaid program have become a substantial part of state budgets, now constituting over 10 percent of most States’ total revenue.
-
Romney has promised to repeal Obamacare.
Well we're all set then.
Obamacare is forever.
-
Well we're all set then.
Obamacare is forever.
I'm depressed enough Micro. Thanks a lot.
Look, either believe Romney or not. Either he will keep his word or not. I'm about ready to tell ALL politicians where the ***** they can go. I am supporting Romney as a last resort but I can as easily ditch the repukeagain party and re-register as an independant and ...oh hell, join a militia or whatever....over going into another voting booth. >:D >:D >:D >:D :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad::mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad::mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad::mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad::mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad::mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad::mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad::mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad::mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad::mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad::mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad::mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
-
"We respect and agree with the conservative opinion that the "Commerce Clause"
can not be used to pay for Obamacare, but first we Bunga Bunga"
SCOTUS June 28, 2012
-
To my thinking ObamaCare is unconstitutional. However, having little faith in the SCOTUS, I wholly expected ObamaCare to be upheld, Kennedy to be the swing vote, and the Commerce Clause to be the reasoning behind the decision. For Roberts to be the swing vote, and his specious reasoning that the mandate is a tax, caught me completely by surprise.
It is clear to me that Roberts went into the hearings with his mind already made up that he was going to vote to uphold ObamaCare. The legal grasping-at-straws reasoning he used indicates to me that Roberts believes ObamaCare is good policy, and he did not consider its constitutionality at all except in as much as what specious reasoning, what absolute stretching and bending of logic, would be required to vote to uphold.
It is an outrageous ruling by the SCOTUS. With this ruling they have debased themselves to the level of the Congress, the institution's reputation damaged perhaps beyond repair.
-
I'm wondering if Roberts vetting by the Bush Admin wasn't deep enough, and they didn't find out what D.C. madam had his name on her guest ledger, but the Obama Admin did..
-
I'm wondering if Roberts vetting by the Bush Admin wasn't deep enough, and they didn't find out what D.C. madam had his name on her guest ledger, but the Obama Admin did..
"This decision proves we need to elect Romney, because of Supreme Court appoint.... wait, Roberts was the swing vote? Oh never mind then..."
-
One more tidbit. I believe Obama will be re-elected in November, the Republicans will lose ground in the House but not lose control, and the Senate will remain firmly in Democrat hands.
Against a sitting President that is supposedly so universally reviled, the best Romney has ever done in aggregated polling is an occasional slight lead that is still within the margin of error.
Thus, ObamaCare will not be repealed. Ever.
-
To my thinking ObamaCare is unconstitutional. However, having little faith in the SCOTUS, I wholly expected ObamaCare to be upheld, Kennedy to be the swing vote, and the Commerce Clause to be the reasoning behind the decision. For Roberts to be the swing vote, and his specious reasoning that the mandate is a tax, caught me completely by surprise.
It is clear to me that Roberts went into the hearings with his mind already made up that he was going to vote to uphold ObamaCare. The legal grasping-at-straws reasoning he used indicates to me that Roberts believes ObamaCare is good policy, and he did not consider its constitutionality at all except in as much as what specious reasoning, what absolute stretching and bending of logic, would be required to vote to uphold.
It is an outrageous ruling by the SCOTUS. With this ruling they have debased themselves to the level of the Congress, the institution's reputation damaged perhaps beyond repair.
It wasn't. The tax power of kongress was the authority used to uphold Obamacare.
-
One more tidbit. I believe Obama will be re-elected in November, the Republicans will lose ground in the House but not lose control, and the Senate will remain firmly in Democrat hands.
Against a sitting President that is supposedly so universally reviled, the best Romney has ever done in aggregated polling is an occasional slight lead that is still within the margin of error.
Thus, ObamaCare will not be repealed. Ever.
[barf] I will join a MILITIA! or FORM ONE!!! Or defect to a south pacific island!!!!
This day is too depressing. I think I'm going to get drunk.
-
It wasn't. The tax power of kongress was the authority used to uphold Obamacare.
Yes, I know that Tommygun. Read my post again.
-
When folks start getting the bill, they'll be upset-but they'll blame their employers, the huge tax increase will spur a black market economy. (& increase the amount of people in jail)
-
Yes, I know that Tommygun. Read my post again.
:facepalm: It's been a long day -- and it's not even lunch yet. I think I am going to get drunk. I hate this....
-
Complex decision. It explicitly states that the mandate is a tax, and because thus within the feds scope of power. Some are saying this will be a big hit for the liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Not sure if I buy it, but we'll see.
I don't buy any of it.
A tax is when I hand some money to the government. I may do it in the form of a check, as when I pay my local property tax or pay the Federal (and state) income tax, or even when I pay an elevated price for a new tire that includes an excise tax and the vendor sends a portion of the money to the government. But the bottom line is ... money is conveyed to the government.
Enacting a law that requires me to purchase something I might otherwise NOT choose to purchase is not a tax. It is a mandate, and for some people it's an unfunded mandate.
Further, it defies comprehension how any of the justices could see this as a legitimate application of the commerce clause. The commerce clause says the Federal government has the power to "regulate" interstate commerce. If the insurance is being offered within my own state, and I choose NOT to buy it, thereby not engaging in commerce at all, how can they with any intellectual honesty claim that forcing me to buy something I don't want, from within my own state, is "regulating" interstate commerce?
I am VERY disappointed in Mr. Justice Roberts.
-
I predict employers by the tens of thousands will now dump their employee health insurance programs. Health insurance premiums will continue rising at a rate well beyond inflation, and health care cost increases will pass Mach.
-
I'm wondering if Roberts vetting by the Bush Admin wasn't deep enough.....
Nope....Bush got who he wanted....esp. considering that Bush wasn't a Constitutional conservative, either....
First thought.....to paraphrase Andrew Jackson, "Now (SCOTUS) has made its ruling, let them enforce it." How well will it work if the states refuse to comply and people refuse to pay the "tax"?.....
Second thought.....all the "conservative" talk show hosts are bragging about how this is Romney's big chance to show how he's different from Obama on health care. Correct me if I'm wrong....but wasn't Romney-Care the start of this whole mess?.....
-
.......... Correct me if I'm wrong....but wasn't Romney-Care the start of this whole mess?.....
Yeah, but despite the gleeful reminders by the Obamatons that Romney Care was the template, Romney has always maintained it is a states' rights matter (10th amendment) and the fedgov would not have the authority to do it.
And he has maintained he will fight against Obamacare if elected.
"Any port in a storm"..........................[popcorn]
-
And he has maintained he will fight against Obamacare if elected.
I think he wil fight it because he wants it to be called 'Romneycare.'
I've seen some write-ups on his campaign stops where he calls for 'repeal and replace' in regards to obamacare.
I'm almost at the point where I want the government to spend so much so fast so that it goes TU while I'm still young.
-
Interesting that it wasn't passed as a tax, but has now been declared a tax by our highest court. Don't taxes have to be treated a little differently than other bills? Does Obamacare now have an invalid birth certificate?
In any case, Obama et al are now responsible for a tax on the poor. That, plus the public disdain for the Health Control law, present a clear opportunity for the GOP. If (big IF) they can convince us they'll repeal, they could sweep the WH and the Senate. If (bigger IF) they deliver, that will repair the brand to some degree.
I am not sanguine.
-
I don't buy any of it.
A tax is when I hand some money to the government. I may do it in the form of a check, as when I pay my local property tax or pay the Federal (and state) income tax, or even when I pay an elevated price for a new tire that includes an excise tax and the vendor sends a portion of the money to the government. But the bottom line is ... money is conveyed to the government.
Enacting a law that requires me to purchase something I might otherwise NOT choose to purchase is not a tax. It is a mandate, and for some people it's an unfunded mandate.
Further, it defies comprehension how any of the justices could see this as a legitimate application of the commerce clause. The commerce clause says the Federal government has the power to "regulate" interstate commerce. If the insurance is being offered within my own state, and I choose NOT to buy it, thereby not engaging in commerce at all, how can they with any intellectual honesty claim that forcing me to buy something I don't want, from within my own state, is "regulating" interstate commerce?
I am VERY disappointed in Mr. Justice Roberts.
Commerce clause, tax and spend, it doesn't matter. The bad part is that this is the FIRST time where it was held constitutional that you may be fined for NOT spending private funds on a product. This is horribly bad juju.
-
You're not mandated to buy a $10,000 Chevy, but if you don't, there will be a $10,000 tax.
You're not mandated to donate $1,000 to the DNC, but if you don't there will be a $1,000 tax.
[barf]
-
Commerce clause, tax and spend, it doesn't matter. The bad part is that this is the FIRST time where it was held constitutional that you may be fined for NOT spending private funds on a product. This is horribly bad juju.
Absolutely. With fricken' clanging bells on it.
-
Bad law, bad policy, bad precedent.
Buckle up, folks, the trip down will be a doozey. I don;t expect Romney to arrest the slide to any great extent.
-
I predict employers by the tens of thousands will now dump their employee health insurance programs.
This.
And the resulting costs to the .gov will far outstrip whatever revenue is generated by the "tax".
I am not sanguine.
You might be if you don't pay your tribute to Obamacare.
-
Boy I'm glad we all voted for Bush otherwise this might have been EVEN worse!
-
I am not sanguine.
But you might be exsanguinated if you don't buy your health insurance, peasant.
-
Boy I'm glad we all voted for Bush otherwise this might have been EVEN worse!
Luckily, Jeb Bush is lining up behind Romney as Next RINO POTUS candidate.
Damn. Both of them worked hard to screw us nearly as bad as the Dems.
-
:facepalm: It's been a long day -- and it's not even lunch yet. I think I am going to get drunk. I hate this....
I know how you feel. I'm on my third 12 hour graveyard in a 65+ hour week. (And I'm a salaried engineer, so no overtime. How am I going to pay for my ObamaCare without overtime. =( )
-
Nothing fundamentally changed; the long-set trends continue. Perhaps now we will not be so naive as to think that We the People are really more than bystanders who are simply cash cows. November's show will be interesting but not so interesting as what follows: the culture is decadent and the nation is sorely riven. At some point we will see, when it gets bad enough, a militant movement arise that is finally fed up with being cannibalized (time to rescreen The Matrix?). This may be solved in Congress, but it will more likely be resolved in the streets. We still have two nations, one that feels entitled and the other that is expected to subsidize them. Sounds to me like an unstable formula for national viability, but I've been preaching the inevitability of secession for several years now and y'all are tired of hearing it. Carpe diem.
-
So basically the Feds can create any law they want, period, and it's ok because the fines for not obeying the law are taxes?
This explains a lot, actually.
-
The Feds, and Congress, can do what they want only because We the People let them do it. We have been passive for a long, long time. Our choice is more comfortable passivity or constructive action.
-
So basically the Feds can create any law they want, period, and it's ok because the fines for not obeying the law are taxes?
This explains a lot, actually.
And the Feds can get around the requirement on the passage of taxation bills by claiming they aren't taxes.
-
People who voted for Bush over Kerry bc of SCOTUS are now just as laughable as Obama's anti-war voters.
From the twitters.
Unless Holder sent Sinaloa cartel gunmen to Roberts' house to hold his family hostage this is a major betrayal.
-
hey! This is a fine law- now we will be able to hire 50,000 more government employees to staff the new dept of American Social Services (Acronym ) . And they can spend all their time deciding what is and is not in your best health interests. Say goodbye to the motorcycle and the cheeseburgers, folks. Oh yes, and the guns-guns are dangerous, lead is poisonous, can't have any of that, so sorry. And I am really sorry about your mom, she had a 50 % chance of recovery but she was 74 and we just can't spend the funds on a non productive citizen- unless they are a member of our selected minority equal's, or made a significant contribution ...
the "climate change" scam is to give them control over everything you do ,and this is worse -not just control over everything you do, but everything you are.
this is a meddler's dream come true.
-
Roberts justification has got to go down in the annals of most asinine justice reasoning of all time. It wasn't merely implied, it was outright written and specified to not be a tax. So basically any government collection of monies is a tax. Any collection of money by the government is okie dookie under the congress right to tax, even if they aren't aware it's a tax. *expletive deleted* *expletive deleted*.
At first I was awe struck. Now I'm just pissed off.
-
Roberts justification has got to go down in the annals of most asinine justice reasoning of all time. It wasn't merely implied, it was outright written and specified to not be a tax. So basically any government collection of monies is a tax. Any collection of money by the government is okie dookie under the congress right to tax, even if they aren't aware it's a tax. *expletive deleted* *expletive deleted*.
Roberts is a rank amateur compared to what Justice John Marshall has done. Roberts is just following the story line of bigger federal government started a long time ago.
-
The best part of the ruling is it is a reality check.
Even those of us who hate the direction the country has been going for decades still often tell ourselves little lies about how the Republic can be saved.
The fed, congress and the court are not going to give up any power or authority they each have accumulated over the decades. The republic was lost a long while ago, we are just watching it play out in slow motion. So the speed of decline will pick up now as we enter into the new normal, the fundamentally changed United States.
Maybe Obama will win again and we can finally see the end game being instituted.
-
Maybe Obama will win again and we can finally see the end game being instituted.
Jeez, don't sugar coat it.
-
Hold it a minute...it says that if you don't have insurance, you'll pay the tax, and it's irrelevent whether you willfully go without or are unable to get it? So, if I lose my job, and therefore my insurance, my taxes would go up? Whose bright idea was that? (Don't answer.)
....
See, that's when The Affordble Care Act kicks in - since you are no longer covered at work you will be covered under ACA - presuming you signed up. And since your employer dumped the company plan they will be putting that employee contribution into your paycheck - and that is what will make your tax bite increase, not ACA.
Of course, you are signing up for something akin to a HMO that has a bazillion other members and five doctors, four of whom are out on the golf course. We'll get you an appointment right away - call before 11 AM and you will be given an appointment by 3 PM. Of course, you appointed time will be some time after Thanksgiving two years from now. But you got your appointment right away, so what are you whining about?
I swear, taking those grad school courses in bureaucracy sure makes it easier to follow all this. Still don't believe any of it, but I can follow it.
stay safe.
-
Ah, yes fellow campers. We may now be free men again. All we have to do is pay the appropriate tax and we get to avoid any law we wish. If you have enough scratch, you can pay the Total Tax and avoid all laws. President, Congress, Supreme Court, Department of the Freedom Tax. Anarchy through taxation coming to a tetrarchy near you.
-
The best part of the ruling is it is a reality check.
Even those of us who hate the direction the country has been going for decades still often tell ourselves little lies about how the Republic can be saved.
The fed, congress and the court are not going to give up any power or authority they each have accumulated over the decades. The republic was lost a long while ago, we are just watching it play out in slow motion. So the speed of decline will pick up now as we enter into the new normal, the fundamentally changed United States.
Maybe Obama will win again and we can finally see the end game being instituted.
I heard it hypothesized that the decision was plotted to create the conditions for a Romney election and complete reversal of the statute. I just cannot believe that, except as illustrating Ron's little lie. ALL of our institutions now put politics, or at best pragmatism, over principle. If this isn't proof, grits ain't groceries. The fall is inevitable, as Ron says, the only variable is time to the bottom.
-
The Fall can be a happy fall. Had we remained "unified" it would have surely meant we would all be slaves. At least this way some, awake and sober, may separate themselves and remain free. That may be as good as it gets. We should never have expected the tiger to be a tabby. They want us muzzled, meek, and marginalized.
-
Omg now Americans will wise up and stop the madness and demand that their government return to its--
Oh wait. No they won't. Americans are *expletive deleted*ing lazy, and will take this just like they have everything else. Nothing will change until a revolution. We are well and truly boned
-
So, if this law is constitutional because it falls under Congress' tax authority, what happens if Congress imposes a national sales tax/VAT? Would this not be precedent allowing them to regulate EVERYTHING? And does not Commerce Clause reach pale in comparison? Or have I stepped over the edge into complete delusion?
(Apologies if someone else already alluded to this and I missed it.)
-
My analogy, feel free to use on your favorite libtard:
Up until this precedent, all taxes were based on doing something (earn income, sell/buy something, own property), meaning that if you did none of those things, you would not have to pay the government any taxes. Now, you do, even if you do NOTHING, and dont require or use any services.
Right now, people pay taxes on gasoline when they buy it, those taxes pay for roads (among other things) that we all use...even walkers and cyclists who use no gasoline. With this precedent, it would be legal for the government to levy a tax on every person who doesn't buy gasoline, in order to help pay for the roads, which we all use. Let's say that tax is $100. However, if you buy $600 in gas (from a private, non-government company btw), you dont have to pay the $100.
Freedoms? What are those?
-
Before the bill passed, they bemoaned the plight of those without health insurance. Millions of Americans were desperate for it. We were dying without it. Every ten seconds, we were told, someone dies from the lack of it. How interesting that the whole plan to help people who couldn't afford insurance hinged on taxing people without health insurance. ;/
This little clip in which Obama is angry that anyone would call the mandate penalty a tax, is getting a lot of play today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg-ofjXrXio
His argument is that it makes sense for people who choose to go without insurance to be penalized, because they will be a burden on the system the rest of us are paying for.
In my late twenties, I went without health insurance for about a year-and-a-half. I didn't have a full-time job, and didn't think about it too much. I also used no health care resources, beyond whatever band-aids I may have bought with my own cash. I'm sorry I was such a burden, Mr. Obama. :'(
-
We just took another step closer to cracking open the ammo box.
-
what happened to the clause in the healthcare bill that said essentially "if any part of this bill is found to be unconstitutional, then the whole law will be revoked."? was that the only part removed by the court?
-
Hmm...neato. If I decline employer coverage (meaning they would give me cash instead), and pay the fine, and then sign up for insurance if something happens, I can actually take home more money. Word.
And I bet my company (who is self-insured) would REALLY rather pay $2k a person than pay what we do for insurance now.
Everyone is so boned.
-
My health insurance costs have already increased dramatically. Dramatically.
what happened to the clause in the healthcare bill that said essentially "if any part of this bill is found to be unconstitutional, then the whole law will be revoked."? was that the only part removed by the court?
I believe it was the other way 'round. A law is not "severable" unless it specifically says so. Here's an article about it:
http://blog.law.cornell.edu/healthcarecases/2012/03/12/severability-preview-national-federation-of-independent-business-v-sebelius-11-393-and-florida-v-department-of-health-and-human-services-11-400/
-
Wait, it's worse than that.
An employer only pays a penalty of $2k on each uninsured, AND subsidized (AGI below $88k for a family of 4) employee.
So, let's say a company is a large defense contractor with 50k employees, where the median salary is in the 70-80k range. That means if they didn't offer any insurance, it would cost them $50M a year in penalties.
Considering most companies (like the one above) will give you about $3-4k a year for not using their insurance, we can make the assumption they spend about $150-200M for that benefit (they are self-insured).
And the employee contribution for a family of 4 is about $4-5k/yr
So the company could realize a net profit of. $100-150M by simply not offering insurance anymore.
Now that unsubsidized $88k for a family of 4 household has to buy insurance (kaiser quotes $11k annually) and gets ROYALLY SCREWED.
Or, they could simply pay their own penalty, $2k/yr at that income level, pocket the $2-3k difference between their current contribution and the penalty, use that for day-to-day medical stuff, and just sign up, use, and cancell, insurance if they need it. In that case, the insurance company gets royally screwed, and goes out of business.
-
Listening to Mark Levin and what he says does nothing calm my fears of a national lurch into corporatism (aka fascism). Levin said 4 count'em 4 justices were prepared to kill the entire legislation based on the commerce clause and individual mandate. All Roberts had to do was agree and Obamacare was a bad dream. Instead Roberts resorts to an argument that was not even debated during hearings. Roberts argumentation portends really bad things in the future.
The whole unfortunate episode reminds me of a quotation by Carroll Quigley in "Hope and Tragedy"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.
http://www.dailypaul.com/62900/carroll-quigley-quote-on-the-two-party-system
Roberts was a republican appointment. He was to serve as a restraint on an outta control liberal court and he turns out to be the very thing he was supposed to counteract.
I think we as a society have just slipped the collar around our own necks and hooked the leash to it.
-
The USA has been in a unrecoverable death spiral for a while. SCOTUS just eased the nose over a little further and advanced the throttles a little. In the long run it won't make that much difference other than maybe speeding up the final collapse.
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/28/is-the-supreme-court-s-health-care-ruling-a-turning-point-in-constitutional-law.html
-
Been doing a little reading. Well, okay, maybe more than a little.
There seem to be some subtleties to this decision that take a little time to sink in.
Do some reading, guys.
I'm not a big fan of the word "nuanced" but it's clear there's more to Roberts' play than initially meets the eye.
-
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/28/is-the-supreme-court-s-health-care-ruling-a-turning-point-in-constitutional-law.html
I prefer this one, but only for the comedic value of calling Al Sharpton an "expert." :laugh:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-ruling-on-obamacare-11-experts-weigh-in.html
-
Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the opinion:
“We possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
-
I'm not a big fan of the word "nuanced" but it's clear there's more to Roberts' play than initially meets the eye.
Roberts' job isn't supposed to be "nuanced"....it's to decide if a law is constitutional or not. And he & the other four failed miserably.
The states may be the last hope to stop this thing....
http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-governors-vow-to-ignore-obamacare/article/2500862
-
I don't understand all the specific details, but my employer went through the bill and decided to eliminate retiree medical coverage, even for current retirees, the reason cited being Obamacare. Claimed it would sharply increase costs.
Now there's a complicated plan in place whereby pre-retirees accumulate some cash in an account which will help them buy coverage should they retire before they're Medicare eligible, and some sort of continuing cash subsidy which will help them pay for coverage under the health care exchanges which may eventually be implemented.
It's all about as clear as mud right now.
* * * * * *
Obama repeatedly insisted the mandate and fine were NOT A TAX. SCOTUS majority said it WAS a tax.
Doesn't that mean we now have a SCOTUS majority that has determined - formally determined! - that Obama is a LIAR?
-
Doesn't that mean we now have a SCOTUS majority that has determined - formally determined! - that Obama is a LIAR?
If you need a court to tell you that a politician is a liar, we are in trouble.
-
Been doing a little reading. Well, okay, maybe more than a little.
There seem to be some subtleties to this decision that take a little time to sink in.
Do some reading, guys.
I'm not a big fan of the word "nuanced" but it's clear there's more to Roberts' play than initially meets the eye.
I'm in the camp that Roberts indeed was playing "chess" rather than "checkers" with his decision, renaming the penalties as what they were, a tax, and laying precedent to potentially do some major rollback of the stretching the ICC has taken over the past century.
However, the other thing he thinks he "won", namely the stability and the sanctity of the SCOTUS in terms of politicization, flip-flopping, and separation/equality of the trimutive of the fed.gov branches, but unfortunately, what he was fighting for was already long gone. And it's disturbingly naive of him to think the activist/Left would ever respect what he did, should they ever get the majority back on the bench.
That said, the ICC alone was too high a price.
-
Wait, it's worse than that.
An employer only pays a penalty of $2k on each uninsured, AND subsidized (AGI below $88k for a family of 4) employee.
So, let's say a company is a large defense contractor with 50k employees, where the median salary is in the 70-80k range. That means if they didn't offer any insurance, it would cost them $50M a year in penalties.
Considering most companies (like the one above) will give you about $3-4k a year for not using their insurance, we can make the assumption they spend about $150-200M for that benefit (they are self-insured).
And the employee contribution for a family of 4 is about $4-5k/yr
So the company could realize a net profit of. $100-150M by simply not offering insurance anymore.
Now that unsubsidized $88k for a family of 4 household has to buy insurance (kaiser quotes $11k annually) and gets ROYALLY SCREWED.
Or, they could simply pay their own penalty, $2k/yr at that income level, pocket the $2-3k difference between their current contribution and the penalty, use that for day-to-day medical stuff, and just sign up, use, and cancell, insurance if they need it. In that case, the insurance company gets royally screwed, and goes out of business.
And when there are no more insurance companies, raise the penaly to 10k per person and them offer Gov't insurance at 9k a year.....
-
Nuance is fine--when you still have an honest social contract. We don't. There is no social contract when one side is applying reason and the other side is applying a hammer. This will be resolved the way all great historical disputes have been.
-
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/28/did_john_roberts_switch_his_vote/
It is impossible for a lawyer to read even the first few pages of the dissent without coming away with the impression that this is a majority opinion that at the last moment lost its fifth vote. Its structure and tone are those of a winning coalition, not that of the losing side in the most controversial Supreme Court case in many years. But when we get to Page 13, far more conclusive evidence appears: No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurring opinion as “Justice Ginsburg’s dissent.
-
He saved ACA--and, for now, Obama--at the expense of the Constitution. That will be Roberts' "great legacy."
-
This really is a turning point in constitutional law. I have had a hard time articulating why, but this op-ed came close.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/opinion/a-confused-opinion.html
As a matter of constitutional text, legal history and logic, the power to regulate commerce and the power to tax should not be separated. It is not good for the court or the country that the chief justice’s position in such an important case is confused at its core...
taxation and regulation are close substitutes, so a limitation on one power matters little if the other power is still available. There is no practical difference between ordering an action, and taxing or fining people who don’t do that same thing. If the Constitution limits direct federal powers, it must also limit Congress’s indirect power of taxation.
In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts didn’t come to grips with the two critical early Supreme Court cases that set out the relationship between the powers of regulation and taxation — a relationship that survived the New Deal revolution in understanding the Commerce Clause....Wickard expanded the scope of federal power, but it did nothing to upset the constitutional parity between the taxing and commerce powers...If direct regulation is beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause (as [Roberts] held), then taxation as an indirect route to the same regulation should be off limits as well (as he failed to hold).
That's right folks, as bad as Wickard.., Raich..., etc are, at least, until this point, the feds couldn't blatantly use taxation as an end-run around what's left of the commerce clause.
-
I wonder what happens if a people come to the conclusion that there is no hope of positive change via the institutions they are supposed to respect.
-
Waidaminute... ???
TAX bills can't originate in the Senate, (Article 7 Sec 1, of the Constitution) which is where the ACA started... And Roberts just made the ACA a "tax bill" in effect. And may be an additional reason Obama and the Democrats were so adamant any fees or fines in the ACA weren't "taxes".
Did he just massively troll the liberal justices, and set this up for repeal anyway?
I'm skeptical of all the "ZOMG HE OUT-THOUGHT EVERYONE!" spin many conservative pundits and bloggers are now throwing around, but reading through the decision, there's so much more WTF'ery in there that it's making me start to wonder if they're somewhat right...
ETA... never mind. ACA did "start" in the Senate, but what they did was take some House appropriations bill about housing allowances for .mil families, gut it, and then stuff the ACA "into" it. :P
-
Hot air says it doesn't apply:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/say-doesnt-the-constitution-require-tax-bills-to-originate-in-the-house/
-
Yep appropriation "shell bills" that start in the House, but are completely re-purposed by the Senate is the de-facto compromise, because since the 17th Amendment, the Senators are also directly elected, and therefore also represent "the people" about as much as the House does. :facepalm:
I was just kind of hoping they'd screwed this one up somehow just as they did by forgetting the severability clause.
-
And the spin begins. Jay Carney, WH spokesman argues that it's not a tax....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/white-house-roberts-obamacare-mandate-penalty-tax/story?id=16679772#
-
Commerce Clause logic is dictum, Tax Clause logic is precedent. I agree Roberts was trying to play cute and not get liberals mad at the court while still being conservative, but to say he succeeded is silly wishful thinking on the order of Dean declaring the WI recall a victory for unions.
-
So here's a quandary....
If the only way the law is legal is if it is a tax, the WH keeps adamantly stating it's not a tax.....
Does that mean the WH is saying the law is illegal???
(sorry, grasping at straws for *some* kind of silver lining here)
-
The silver lining is we will know for sure what the number of idiots is in the US...the popular vote total for Obama in November.
-
Hot air says it doesn't apply:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/say-doesnt-the-constitution-require-tax-bills-to-originate-in-the-house/
But it would be worth pursuing to another SCOTUS case....esp. if the makeup of the court changes by the time it reaches it....like Ginsberg retiring....or Roberts medically incapable due to a freak gavel accident....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/michael-savage-john-roberts-epilepsy-medication_n_1636092.html
-
apropos for the times:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - CS Lewis -
-
That CS Lewis quote seems appropriate. My Brother voted for Obama because he feels admently that the Republicans (like GW Bush) feel that they know better what is good for you and legislate accordingly. The war in Iraq was a case he would reference as he believed we had no business fighting there until the country challenges our own shores with war. I disagree but I understand his issues.
So now we have "Obama Care" ruling that the law is constitutional. My vote will go for anyone who will vote to overturn the ruling this time. It is coming out now that apparently Chief Justice Roberts was in fact on the repeal Obama Care side until just prior to the ruling when he shifted his vote to the more liberal interpretation of the law and came up with the authority to tax slant as justification. Essentially he told the voters that if they don't want it, vote in a Congress that supports your view point.
I am beginning now to ask just what is Obama Care and what are the requirements? I know that the majority of the people who support the legislation are either very liberal or are most apt to benefit from the law. They want free health care and want somebody else to pay for it. I noticed some YouTube videos that I am going to start listening to with a critical ear about just what is Obama Care. There are some good things built into the law, but I tend to stand on the viewpoint that government should not be involved to this degree with a national health care law. Legally the government could require states and insurance companies with the ammunition to set up their own groups. But in my state, TN Care is a miserable failure with most (certainly many) will not accept the insurance for services rendered as they seem to have about a 25% pay ratio of the original bill.
-
Well, it appears the Romney team agrees with the White House that it is a penalty, not a tax.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/02/romney-others-still-honing-message-on-obamacare-tax-or-penalty/
-
Well, it appears the Romney team agrees with the White House that it is a penalty, not a tax.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/02/romney-others-still-honing-message-on-obamacare-tax-or-penalty/
It is a penalty....a penalty for electing Obama....
-
"The law is an ass," sir, but, you see, it's their ass. Stop looking for logic where there is only a lust for power.
-
Ah, the first sounds of capitulation from the GOP. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell chimes in (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MCCONNELL_HEALTH_CARE_LAW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-07-02-18-35-36) on the "long odds" to repeal ObamaCare.
-
McConnell: Lives of the Rich and Chinless. He's an old man who needs some cookies, a cup of warm milk, and the brief attentions of loving grandchildren before bedtime. The nation's in the anteroom of fascism, and the GOP is adjusting their bow ties.
We don't want to hear that Obamacare will be a bitch to repeal. Point is, failure to repeal is not an option, Senator.
All of this is silly stuff. Roberts didn't give a fig for the law or the Constitution; the Republicans, however, are going to nice it out.
It's hard to watch this without a barf bag.
-
Soon enough you won't have anything to barf into your recycled-material bag, so no worries.
-
Ah, but I've stashing the Forbidden Bags for years, comrade. :)
-
You don't want to be placed on the No-fly list as a health trrst, now do you?:police: Just shut up and pay up, it's the American way! :rofl:
Coincidentaly, apparently, commie-librls don't seem to appreciate Obamacare much either...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYJ3QEJ-ugg
Topic discussed around the 5:30 mark.
-
Breaking News! This just in, Romney says the mandate is a tax.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/04/romney-if-the-supreme-court-says-the-mandates-a-tax-then-its-a-tax/
Romney the Flounder acts true to form. I want to know which position is his real position. The article makes it sound like The Flounder's staff jumped out too soon and that The Flounder's real position is tax.
I am beginning to think the same cadre of incompetent boobs that gave us McCain are now busy at work giving us McCain Part Deux.
Hot Rumor Alert! Political voices in some circles are saying its time for McConnell to proceed with the rest of his life's work. Jim DeMint's name keeps popping up amongst TEA types as a successor. Yeah, I know. Another Flight of the Fancy.
-
McConnell: Lives of the Rich and Chinless. He's an old man who needs some cookies, a cup of warm milk, and the brief attentions of loving grandchildren before bedtime. The nation's in the anteroom of fascism, and the GOP is adjusting their bow ties.
More apt a description of McConnell has yet to be penned.
-
The republicans don't really want to repeal Obamacare because it's such a gift to their constituents - massive health insurers and drug manufacturers. Notice how quiet the corporations have been about this?
-
The republicans don't really want to repeal Obamacare because it's such a gift to their constituents - massive health insurers and drug manufacturers. Notice how quiet the corporations have been about this?
Eh, I don't know who "owns" the above as constituents/donors, but IIRC they were both part of the writing process for the law.
-
Eh, I don't know who "owns" the above as constituents/donors, but IIRC they were both part of the writing process for the law.
Yep. All the outcry is about poor people, who aren't going to benefit from Obamacare. The problem for them is price, and the bill does not address prices.
The real socialism here is welfare for corporations, as usual.
-
Yep. All the outcry is about poor people, who aren't going to benefit from Obamacare. The problem for them is price, and the bill does not address prices.
The real socialism here is welfare for corporations, as usual.
The welfare-state has always, in all its iterations, been backed by the upper class, because it has been perceived as beneficial to it in several ways:
1. Enabling the corporations to profit from the state through subsidies and contracts.
2. Enabling the corporations to protect themselves from small business by raising cost of entry.
3. Forcing the poor into the so-called "protestant work ethic" and "socialized lifestyle" - by reducing access to drugs, encouraging 'stable homes', etc. (that this hasn't work doesn't matter - we're talking about what the goal was, not whether it was achieved). THere's a reason why a lot of progressive writing isn't about giving the poor money, it's about controlling their lifestyle pro-actively.
Today, of course, this is somewhat (but only in part) mediated by the influence of the very extreme left, who thinks social control is for losers and we should just chuck money at the poor. On the other hand, many so-called right-wingers like this role of the modern state.
4. For decades, left-wing propaganda has been that we have a supposed 'compromise' in our society where the 'rich' give up some of their wealth in exchange of social stability (wherein extremists would supposedly rise to power if we didn't have a welfare state, propelled of course by the rage of the poor). Many wealthy individuals believe this.
[
-
I am beginning to think the same cadre of incompetent boobs that gave us McCain are now busy at work giving us McCain Part Deux.
Well,
Duh!
:facepalm:
-
Here's interesting fallout I didn't know about: Not only is Obamacare a tax, but it is repealing and restricting tax deductions for health care. I was looking at possibly switching to a Health Savings Account. Not so sure about that now:
3. The ObamaCare Flexible Spending Account Cap
The 24 million Americans who have Flexible Spending Accounts will face a new federally imposed $2,500 annual cap. These pre-tax accounts, which currently have no federal limit, are used to purchase everything from contact lenses to children’s braces. With the cost of braces being as high as $7,200, this tax provision will play an unwelcome role in everyday kitchen-table health care decisions.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/05/five-major-obamacare-taxes-that-will-hit-your-wallet-in-2013/#ixzz1zquXFUch
One of my coworkers is a raving Obama fan. He always comes to me to talk about investing. Last December when we had open enrollment for our health care at work, he was proudly telling me that based on advice form their investment consultant, he and his wife switched to a Health Savings Account plan. Good advice from his investment guy at the time, since he has a young family, but I wonder how he likes Obama now?
For a family of four like his, he'll never be able to build up any savings at $2500/yr.
-
It's possible there are new Health Savings Account (HSA) restrictions, but the "Flexible Spending Account cap" quoted is for FSAs, which are a different beast. I have an HSA, but have never had an FSA due to the fact that it's "use it or lose it account", if you don't have it all spent by the end of the year the money goes away.
-
Ah, my error then. Apologies for the mixup.
Still, if you have a family member with a chronic problem, it sounds like the flexible account will not be the way to go since you'd likely be running through the dough pretty quick. Possibly the $2500 cap wouldn't have much of an effect on a healthy family going in for routine checkups.
-
.....I am beginning to think the same cadre of incompetent boobs that gave us McCain are now busy at work giving us McCain Part Deux......
If we could get the MSM to concentrate on Obama's idiocities we woudln't be thinking this way...... :mad:
-
HSA is for medical expenses and can be accumulated (rolled over) from year to year.
FSA can be used for medical and childcare expenses but are "use it or lose it" accounts.
Both are handy for setting aside money to pay for things like deductibles, out-of pocket medical expenses, the aforementioned braces and the like.
Maybe not so much anymore....Obamacare cracks down on those accounts.
-
We keep a small FSA even though it's use it or loose it. Basically we have some known bills every year (certain medications, glasses/contacts, etc.) so we set it up for the amount we know we're going to use.
If you have predictable expenses they are handy.
-
You are not virtuous if you support government programs that help folks in need.
Folks seem to feel better about themselves for supporting Robin Hood type government as long as they're not the ones being robbed.
No brownie points awarded for legalized theft and redistribution.
Freedom requires a virtuous, self reliant people that have strong family and community ties. Otherwise government will be recruited to pick up the slack, and government is a crude blunt tool that attracts far too many petty tyrants into its ranks. All it can do is inefficiently redistribute or inflate the currency.