Health Care Law Massacred in Supreme Court

[Vedubin01]

charlie, google "cadillac obamacare plan" and report back

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/08/19/in-verizon-strike-unions-protest-obamacare-law-they-helped-pass/

here is a story with Verizon's health care talking about this....

[gwb72tii]

the plans that cost too much according to the democrats
they are primarily union plans, and surprise surprise the taxation (penalty) doesn't come into effect until 2018, after the messiah is gone
this is defacto rationing, which is the admin's way of controlling cost

[Charlie]

charlie, google "cadillac obamacare plan" and report back

So, no, you don't.

Good to know.

-Charlie

[gwb72tii]

You got a link on that one? On, you know, something other than a freeper blog or a website telling me that Jesus is coming back in 2 years?

Having worked with a lot of employee health care plans, I don't think too many people are going to have to worry about them providing "too many" benefits. Given that the general trend has been a massive reduction in coverage and benefits and increased costs the past 15 years or so.

-Charlie

charlie, google "cadillac obamacare plan" and report back

[rwh11385]

With regards to ACA, it's a conservative program, invented by conservatives, and falls much in line with traditional conservative ideology. For those reasons I'm not crazy about it and wished for something more progressive but the fact that the conservative legislators are shitting on this bill tells me they either don't understand it, don't understand their own ideology, or are so hell bent on opposing anything Obama does, they sacrifice their own beliefs over the desire for power and control. For those conservatives that are not legislators, your hatred towards this bill mainly stems from propaganda rather than a true understanding of the bill's complexities.

Why is this so hard to understand?

People who celebrated Obamacare as socialized medicine = idiots. Obama was against a healthcare bill with an individual mandate because he didn't think it was up to snuff, but later compromised. (He didn't "win" although he was smart enough to spin it like he did) But if that makes them happy and shuts them up, then that is what the Old Grand Old Party was going for.

People who attacked it as socialized medicine = idiots. Especially since it was the Republican's own plan to stop the Democrats from a single payer system, and if ACA was overturned then single payer would be back on the table and actually constitutional without question.

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1989_assuring_affordable_health_care_for_all_americans.pdf

Seriously, Obama pulled this right out of the GOP's playbook and ran with it. But because he carried it, they hated their own policy.

[rwh11385]

You sound pretty angry, why is that? I merely asked you to clarify your poorly written little rant.

Here's the funny part, I'm pretty conservative. I'm not 100% on board with this law. That being said, I find it hilarious that Romney is trying to attack the bill that is the exact same bill he created and enacted. The fact that most republicans and "conservatives" in this country are so tone deaf and blind, and frankly just dumb to not see this is kinda funny.

Healthcare in this country is fucking broken. It needs to be fixed, there is no debating this. ObamaromneyCare is *a* solution to this. Is it an ideal solution? Nope. But it is a solution. When prompted for their own solution to the plan, the republicans seem to only have one answer: "No". That's it. They're gonna stick their fingers in their ears and stomp their feet on the ground. That's insane.

Bush II shot a bunch of holes in the republican boat. The tea-partiers and Koch Brothers are doing their best to set it on fire while it sinks. The stupidity with the healthcare bill is just the latest in a long line. There was the budget stupidity last year that ended with the credit rating being lowered. S&P Said they had no reason ever to fear a fiscal default from the US, other than for a political stunt. The Tea Party idiots did just that. The retarded Grover Norquist no tax pledge is another just mind bogglingly stupid stunt. Fixing a budget deficit has to come from both ends. You have to cut spending, and you have to bring more money in. Yes, that means emergency tax breaks that were intended for a 2 year period that have been extended for 10 need to go away. Yes, that means that people who make more are going to have to pay more. There's no magic bullet.
"Fuck you, got mine" isn't sustainable in a consumer and service based economy when that "got mine" destroys the middle class that buys the rich guy's shit. The willful ignorance is astounding.

Then there's the wonderful cause of trying to fight a culture war that they lost 50 years ago and toss abortions and birth control. Seriously?

They're scraping the barrel. They've lost the moderates and independants and are basically relying on the bottom feeding bible thumpers and frankly "I hate black guys" crowd. I used to identify as a republican, I won't anymore. Frankly, at this point I'll barely identify as "conservative".

Under Obama, the democratic party has gone more centrist, to nearly Bill Clinton levels. The Republicans? They've gone off the fucking deep end. At the rate they're going, I don't see them being nationally relevant in 10 years. Seriously, we're talking green party-levels of national relevance.

-Charlie

When you're on fire, you're golden. Did a lot of writing now I won't have to do.

2008:


2012:


There's some good articles (not OMG he's Kenyan or gonna ruin us all) that talk about how he went and hired a bunch of Bush people and turned way more conservative than he was during his campaign vs. Hillary. Just look at how Obama has moved in 4 years. The problem is that the GOP has been taken over by extremists and idiots who hate gays and don't even like their OWN policies.

Either side, OWS or Tea Partiers, who believe in their mob/party rhetoric without any logic is bad for society. Sadly, the minority of people who can reason and think for themselves are outnumbered and outshouted by the extremists.

[mrsleeve]

[/I]

So, we're really gonna throw a Thomas Jefferson quote out here? The guy who was personally bailed out three times by the federal government due to insolvency, declared bankruptcy, sold off all his property and was still over 200k in debt (in 19th century funds, no less, not modern day adjusted) when he died?

I always giggle a bit when people try to use Jefferson in financial issues. The man was far from an expert in those matters. He was a massive spender.

-Charlie

Well you have to remember the man INHERITED all his FIL debts which were HUGE as well.

[naplesE30]

Read the text of the dissent which clearly states otherwise.. I will not pretend to have read the entire bill.

"In answering that question we must, if “fairly possible,” Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932), construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than un- constitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not.

Quite separately, the fact that Congress (in its ownwords) “imposed . . . a penalty,” 26 U. S. C. §5000A(b)(1),for failure to buy insurance is alone sufficient to renderthat failure unlawful.

Against the mountain of evidence that the minimum coverage requirement is what the statute calls it—a requirement—and that the penalty for its violation is what the statute calls it—a penalty—the Government brings forward the flimsiest of indications to the contrary. It notes that “[t]he minimum coverage provision amends theInternal Revenue Code to provide that a non-exempted individual . . . will owe a monetary penalty, in addition to the income tax itself,” and that “[t]he [Internal RevenueService (IRS)] will assess and collect the penalty in the same manner as assessable penalties under the Internal Revenue Code.” The manner of collection could perhaps suggest a tax if IRS penalty-collection were unheard-of or rare. It is not.
The last of the feeble arguments in favor of petitioners that we will address is the contention that what this statute repeatedly calls a penalty is in fact a tax because it contains no scienter requirement. The presence of such a requirement suggests a penalty—though one can imagine a tax imposed only on willful action; but the absence of such a requirement does not suggest a tax. Penalties for absolute-liability offenses are commonplace. And where a statute is silent as to scienter, we traditionally presume a mens rea requirement if the statute imposes a “severe penalty.” Staples v. United States, 511 U. S. 600, 618 (1994). Since we have an entire jurisprudence addressing when it is that a scienter requirement should be inferred from a penalty, it is quite illogical to suggest that a penalty is not a penalty for want of an express scienter requirement.

And the nail in the coffin is that the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, rather than where a tax would be found—in Title IX, containing the Act’s “Revenue Provisions.” In sum, “the terms of [the] act rende[r] it unavoidable,” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448 (1830), that Congress imposed a regulatory penalty, not a tax.

For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Actof 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives."




I didnt know people were being taxed on refusal to purchase a good or sevice for the past 120 yrs, or that the supreme court was redefining and actually making the argument for the govt. in cases brought before it for the past 220 yrs. But I am a little slow to catch up I suppose.

[BraveUlysses]

Charlie,
You have obviously missed the whole point of my posts. It did take a little thought to grasp so I understand.

The scotus ruled that it was a tax ( which it was not, and never argued to be so)

After the states began filing lawsuits against obamacare, government lawyers did in fact argue that it was a tax.

Obama, as a politician, saying it "wouldn't be a tax" is not a legally binding statement in any way.

[Charlie]

Charlie,
You have obviously missed the whole point of my posts. It did take a little thought to grasp so I understand.

The scotus ruled that it was a tax ( which it was not, and never argued to be so) and in so doing, the power to vote out those who tax is in the peoples hands. This is how they sold it. The reality is half, and soon to be over half, are not affected by taxes or their increase as they dont pay them. So what do they care if taxes are at 100% they dont pay any. That is the tipping point. They become toataly dependent upon taxes to provide for them. At some point it is not sustainable..... Yes the people have the power to vote out their reps, but once they have become dependent upon the govt to provide for their well being they are powerless. So the logic used by the court is absolutley upside down. In a vacum it may be sound logic, but in reality it is not. Like I originally posted healthcare is the least that this precedent affects.

Welcome to the last 120 years of American society, what else is new?

You also might want to shore your comments up somewhat, as saying "50% of americans don't pay taxes" is spurious at best. Yes, with standard income deductions and tax credits, around 46% of the country ends up paying no *income* tax. They are not exempt from SS or Medicare tax however. You also need to figure that nearly 23% of the country is on Social Security or SSID, which is not taxed, making up a pretty good chunk of your sample.

-Charlie

[naplesE30]

Charlie,
You have obviously missed the whole point of my posts. It did take a little thought to grasp so I understand.

The scotus ruled that it was a tax ( which it was not, and never argued to be so) and in so doing, the power to vote out those who tax is in the peoples hands. This is how they sold it. The reality is half, and soon to be over half, are not affected by taxes or their increase as they dont pay them. So what do they care if taxes are at 100% they dont pay any. That is the tipping point. They become toataly dependent upon taxes to provide for them. At some point it is not sustainable..... Yes the people have the power to vote out their reps, but once they have become dependent upon the govt to provide for their well being they are powerless. So the logic used by the court is absolutley upside down. In a vacum it may be sound logic, but in reality it is not. Like I originally posted healthcare is the least that this precedent affects.

[gwb72tii]

You get pissy and nasty pretty quickly, don't ya? This why they slapped your hand on the FAQ?

I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here man. Romney's a lame duck. Yea, there's enough anti-Obama sentiment in the US right now that if the GOP were to toss up a strong, vibrate candidate with a clear message and real solutions, they could take it. Instead, they're tossing out a guy with no message who's practically a clone of Obama politically, who's completely unrelateable to a good chunk of the US population, who is terrible in interviews, and happens to be a part of the weirdo underwear cult, enough to scare off the evangelicals.

He's onion flavored gum. He's the Bob Dole/John McCain. Guys past their time who are trying way too hard to adapt a message that was never there.

-Charlie

nice.
just helping the blind

[Vedubin01]

Yeah, and the dealer is feeding aces to the rich, who tip the dealer graciously when they win the hand.

then you better start to learn how to count cards or go play at another table! ;)

[Charlie]

really? did you read the article? try again. 43,000 donations. that's not the rich donating.

do the math and report back. you should be able to without a calculator

You get pissy and nasty pretty quickly, don't ya? This why they slapped your hand on the FAQ?

I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here man. Romney's a lame duck. Yea, there's enough anti-Obama sentiment in the US right now that if the GOP were to toss up a strong, vibrate candidate with a clear message and real solutions, they could take it. Instead, they're tossing out a guy with no message who's practically a clone of Obama politically, who's completely unrelateable to a good chunk of the US population, who is terrible in interviews, and happens to be a part of the weirdo underwear cult, enough to scare off the evangelicals.

He's onion flavored gum. He's the Bob Dole/John McCain. Guys past their time who are trying way too hard to adapt a message that was never there.

-Charlie

[gwb72tii]

Rich guys threatened by the guy who's looking to close off their tax loopholes utilizing the unlimited superpac loopholes to donate a bunch of money to their buddy from the venture cap firm?

You don't say!

Seriously, when you've got a guy like Adelson who drops 10-15 mil at the drop of a hat on a campaign, does this really even seem like a large amount?

Did the sun also come up today?

-Charlie

really? did you read the article? try again. 43,000 donations. that's not the rich donating.

do the math and report back. you should be able to without a calculator