Reply With Quote
"THIS is what gets passed"
Dems are financed by UCA, too.
UCA, finance, and the 1% own and operate the USA for their benefit. without the mandate for for-profit insurance, ACA would have been Harry-and-Louise'd to death.
Stocks were down across the board yesterday; if you want to see what Big Insurance does when it truly feels threatened, review what they did to HillaryCare. Insurance DID NOT fight this version of Obamacare. No reason to. It requires employers over 50 employees to cover all employees - AND it provides subsidies for sick people to get them off those plans and into government pools. Insurance companies made out like bandits; to the extent that they could have written this law. Seriously.
Why does it not APPEAR that way to you? Because Obama needs them to be the bogeyman, doesn't he. Are they willing to assume that role for the benefits provided by this bill. You betterdamnwellbeliveit!
President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and a 60 vote majority in the Senate and THIS is what gets passed?!! And liberal tribe-members are excited about it? lol.
"THIS is what gets passed"
Dems are financed by UCA, too.
UCA, finance, and the 1% own and operate the USA for their benefit. without the mandate for for-profit insurance, ACA would have been Harry-and-Louise'd to death.
B, you really CAN'T allow for no pre-existing conditions exclusions if you don't get everyone into the system.
Do that with Homeowners insurance, and people would purchase it UNTIL the house was on fire.
I'm still amazed that it was Roberts and not Kennedy joining the four more liberal justices in the majority opinion. I can't help but feel that there was a ton of political wrangling going on behind the scenes. I'm not sure if Roberts was trying to avoid a ton of pressure on the Supreme Court, or just looking to improve its image after the Citizens United fiasco, but this wreaks of more a political decision than a judicial one.
All that being said, I'm glad it went down the way it did. Striking down the law would have been terrible for the country in my opinion, at least from a political perspective. The court essentially passed the buck onto the American voters. If they don't want Obamacare, they can vote in enough senators and Mitt Romney as presidet to have it repealed.
"have it repealed."
the insurance lobby will shut Gecko and the Repugs up, who are no just inflaming the igorant bubbas. ACA won't be repealed, but the Repugs, if the continue as the majority in the House, will defund it, like they do with the IRS, EPA, SEC, etc.
Thanks for latching onto the hyperbole and ignoring the relevant idea in the post, (although, given the government's ability to estimate costs/revenues of any of their actions, I wouldn't be surprised if the Affordable Care Act becomes one of the biggest tax burdens ever heaped on productive Americans).
On the other issue; granted, this is a loss for the right and libertarians. The individual mandate survived a Supreme Court challenge. Something I didn't think would happen. I admit to being both disappointed and surprised by how it came down. But, oh well, you win some, you lose some.
What I find interesting is Justice Roberts having to contort the individual mandate "penalty" into something the authors and proponents vehemently denied it was; a tax.
So, now, Republicans can campaign for the next four months on how Obama lied -- once again -- about not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. 60% of public already want the AFA repealed (they wanted it struck down) and, with it now being called a tax, it can only become more unpopular.
On the bright side, the SCOTUS finally drew a line in the sand on just what the Government can do under the specter of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause -- both of which were used by Democrats to justify the individual mandate and both of which were specifically struck down by Justice Roberts' majority opinion.
Also, now that the individual mandate penalty tax is being called what the Court views it as, a tax, any repeal legislation cannot be filibustered.
Democrats win! They win the privilege of heaping yet another tax on the people. Congratulations. I mean it.
Conservatives Claim Roberts Upheld Obamacare Because Of ‘Cognitive Problems’ Due To Epilepsy Medication
On his radio show yesterday, right-wing host Michael Savage — who has previously called autism a “phony disease” — claimed that Roberts’ epilepsy is the root cause of his “cognitive dissociation” in the Obamacare ruling:
Let’s talk about Roberts. I’m going to tell you something that you’re not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It’s well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts’ writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...epsy-medicine/
"Obama lied -- once again -- about not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000."
Why Obamacare Is A Tax Cut For Millions Of Americans
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday that Obamacare, the 2010 health care law, is cons utional under Congress’ ability to tax, Republicans have launched a full court press calling the individual mandate a “massive tax hike.” But as ThinkProgress noted yesterday, there is no massive tax hike: few people will ever pay the penalty, and those who do will pay less than the amount of the payroll tax increase that Republicans nearly allowed to occur.
In addition, according to a report from Families USA, 28.6 million Americans, most of them middle-class, will receive tax cuts under the bill due to entering health care exchanges and receiving affordability credits:
We found that an estimated 28.6 million Americans will be eligible for the tax credits in 2014, and that the total value of the tax credits that year will be $110.1 billion. The new tax credits will provide much-needed assistance to insured individuals and families who struggle harder each year to pay rising premiums, as well as to uninsured individuals and families who need help purchasing coverage that otherwise would be completely out of reach financially. Most of the families who will be eligible for the tax credits will be employed, many for small businesses, and will have incomes between two and four times poverty (between $44,100 and $88,200 for a family of four based on 2010 poverty guidelines).
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...e-class-taxes/
Trump Says John Roberts’ Birth Certificate is Fake
NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report) – Controversy swirled around John Roberts today as billionaire Donald Trump claimed that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court had a fraudulent birth certificate.
Mr. Trump said that these are the findings of a team of personal investigators he retained just after ten o’clock yesterday morning.
According to these investigators, Justice Roberts, who claims to have grown up in Indiana, was actually born in a mud hut in a tiny rural village in Kenya.
Furthermore, Mr. Trump claimed, “So-called John Roberts’ father was a village witchdoctor who forced all of the villagers to submit to his shamanic treatments, whether they wanted them or not.”
While most of the mainstream media seemed skeptical of Mr. Trump’s allegations, Sean Hannity of the Fox News Channel called them “very concerning,” adding, “It’s time that the American people learned the truth about John Hussein Roberts.”
http://www.borowitzreport.com/
More fun reactions here:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...right-wing.php
There is swirling speculation that either of two things is true of Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in the ACA case.
Many believe that Roberts was originally the author of an opinion for the majority of the Court that consisted of himself, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito, which would have wholly invalidated the Act entirely but that he switched sides either because the eventual dissenters wanted the opinion to go to lengths that Roberts thought were untenable or because Roberts was eventually persuaded by the tax argument. There is some textual support in the various opinions for that view, though we might not ever know if it is the true story.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2012/06/e...care-case.html
The other view -- and the one that seems quite plausible to me -- is that Chief Justice Roberts saw this case as a watershed moment for a Court that has become increasingly politicized and polarized in recent years and felt an ins utional obligation (to the Court) to find a way to entrust political decisions to the political branches and their cons uents. It's a romanticized notion, but it's hardly one without historical precedent; past Chief Justices have frequently found a need to preserve the Court's political independence and have worked assiduously to find something as close to unanimity as possible. Chief Justice Warren's efforts to ensure that Brown v. Board of Education was decided unanimously is perhaps the most famous example of this.
http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/29/did...e-perhaps-not/
Isn't it pretty unprecedented for a supreme court to rewrite a law sent to it instead of just ruling on whether the law as written is cons utional?
What was "re-written"? The SCOTUS is in the business of analyzing laws and seeing how they fit in the cons utional framework, if they fit at all. I don't think even the dissenting judges claimed law was being re-written by the majority (I could be wrong, didn't read the dissenting opinion in it's entirety).
On the first scenario, there is some evidence much of the dissent was written in support of a majority opinion.
On the second, don't you find it odd Roberts used something called the "fairly possible" test in order to construe the individual mandate penalty into a tax when no one on the side supporting the law saw it that way and, in fact, went to great lengths to assure the American people it wasn't a tax?
In one of the articles I read, the "fairly possible" test is generally applied when the court is reluctant to overturn a popular law and, in promoting the democratic process, the courts will apply the test to determine if the popular intent of the law is "fairly possible."
Seems odd that Roberts would actually be the one to make the claim the mandate's penalty was a tax and then support it by saying it's fairly possible to view it as such.
If you agree the Individual Mandate was the linchpin on which the law lived or died, then technically, the law was transformed from a health care law to a tax bill.
The distinction isn't minor.
I'm sure they'll be re-visiting the origin of the legislation since all tax bills must begin in the House. This bill was a complete re-write of the House version that began in the Senate.
Also, as a tax bill, repealing it falls under different rules.
But, I'm just repeating what I've gleaned from Volokh and other sources. Seems to have been a major shift in the fundamental understanding of what the law is intended to be.
Last edited by Yonivore; 06-29-2012 at 02:24 PM.
That's a good place to start.
I disagree. The law largely deals with healthcare, including ways to regulate and fund it. A lot of laws are exactly the same way, including defense, education, etc.
Actually, the good place to start would be the law. The law doesn't explicitly say the penalty isn't a tax or should interpreted under the commerce clause. Those are simply arguments made to the court. If the penalty does fit within Congress' taxing authority, then it's simply cons utional.
since when does characterizing a law = rewriting a law?
Funny but True:
Romney Raises $4.6 Million in Obamacare Repeal Push
Campaign theme for the next four months:Over 47,000 donations were made to Mitt Romney in the past 24 hours, according to Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul — and the total amount given was $4.6 million.
I'm on record stating that the mandate being upheld will hurt Barry in the elections... said that before the SCOTUS ruled... we'll see...
Do you disagree the viability of the law hinged on whether or not the individual mandate penalty is a fine or a tax? From what I've read, absent Roberts' "fairly possible" finding for the mandate penalty being a tax, the entire law was set to be struck down.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure anyone has enough knowledge of the contents to have done a re-write.
I'm not saying Roberts' "persuasive" application of the "fairly possible" test was uncons utional. I just find it both odd and ironic that he would use the test to find the individual mandate penalty was something the law's authors and proponents vehemently argued against.
I guess we'll see how the public likes their new tax this November.
Duly noted.
I do disagree. Everybody knew going in that you would need to pay the government a certain amount if you didn't purchase health insurance. We can call that whatever we want, but it's a tax. Just like tolls, passport fees, etc are not called a tax, but they're effectively a tax.
IMO, the viability of the law hinged on whether Congress has the authority to levy taxes if you DON'T do something (ie: enter into a commercial agreement with an insurance company).
I don't particularly like this law. Unfortunately, I always had the feeling we had to get to something like this to remove the prior status quo and shake things up.
That cartoon is absolutely layered with comedy. Every time I look at it I find something else funny about it.
The genius is really in its subtlety. You can tell this is the work of a seasoned intellectual artist because it looks nothing like the kinds of pictures 7-year-olds draw of their moms when they're sent to their rooms for punishment.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
