dayman

LOL c'mon Tom. You think I would put my high value PPP reputation (as the clear cut most brilliant and nonpartisan speaker of the truth) on the line by falsifying something that would within a matter of minutes (or months on PPP or CNN) be corrected? No way. (It goes w/ out saying if anyone really wants to understand it in true detail you just have to read it...but as I said it's not out of order it's merely edited so people can get the gist w/ out reading 80 pages I didn't distort it to my knowledge beyond shortening it) And in any event I should synthesize Scalia (if nothing more than to prompt discussion) and why it isn't a tax, the man is more learned than I will ever be but his methods of reason are nuts to me ... so it may be a bit. I once thought I was a Scalia fan long ago before I read ... so it will be fun to me since I'm lame. (and honestly if Scalia was the majority he would be what you see above first...b/c he would be the law)

LOL watching a daily show on DVR he's killing Fox news and CNN for their retarded reporting initially to be the first to report w/ out reading. To MSNBCs credit (shocking even to me seriously...) they never got it wrong and to FOx's credit (some credit is due) they corrected it VERY quickly...CNN went on for 7 minutes w/ out a clue morphing into full "not constitutional mode". LOL it is funny regardless of party that it happened and the bit. Fox bit the bullet but basically recovered instantly but CNN...my god CNN

It is my fault for posting that here. Let's debate the policy in the other topic. Lets keep it legal in here.

What it does is make acquiring healthcare easier, and it's a tax penalty if you choose not to. It's not a tax "increase." Now the truth is it will straight up be a .9% tax increase on people making over 200K a year in a few years. So that's your ammo, just to help you out. It is a tax increase of less than 1% on those making over 200K. Other than that, it makes acquiring health insurance and w/ a penalty if you refuse. And btw the tax penalty, is not much. At no point is it greater than the average cost of healthcare (or less than $700) that meets the standards and to be practical if you don't have healthcare under the new system it's going to be $1000ish a year or less unless you are a self destructive idiot. In any event we should move this entire debate to the other topic this topic title is embarrassing for all of America and yes...even by PPP standards.

No solutions? Just "you don't have to buy health insurance and if you are sick you don't have to seek care" as you said in the other topic? And you expect to be taken seriously? Even the furthest of all anti-ACA don't say that. You discredit yourself. You don't understand your own industry and what it is doing to the country. And that isn't an attack on doctors in general. But I hate to break it to you, b/c you are in the industry doesn't mean you even have a clue what the problem is (apparently) or what the ACA is. The ACA is the law, so lets make it better. Or, if repeal is in order...lets hear what will take its place and how it is so different from the ACA that repeal must take place. C'mon Doc. You hate on it vehemently and claim it will destroy medicine. Why? And what would be better. America is listening. There is a debate. Feel free to join.

But...but...then the GOP can't play the tape over and over again where Obama is asked why it isn't fair to characterize the bill as a TAX INCREASE (referring to the mandate) and objecting to that (b/c it's a tax penalty)...and claim he was saying it wasn't a "tax." And in any event, even had he claimed that it is technically wrong b/c people making over 200K a year will experience a .9% tax increase in 2 years so it is a tax anyway...the point being...it takes money to fix problems and this was designed to take as little as we could figure out while preserving private health care insurance (which most Americans want). So no, the mandate is not a tax increase it is a tax penalty. Yes the ACA has a tax increase for some in it (.9% for those making over 200K a year). But the point it...WHO CARES. You can't fix it "with out costing you a dime" like idiot Bachmann said on O'Reilly today. It's nonsense. At some point political have to be honest with themselves. STOP IT!

So lets here it. There's basically Sweeden (aka Romneycare/ACA/Obamacare) or Canada (single payer) if you ACTUALLY want to address the preexisting injury people not having access. Now I know what you will say...."I don't care about the uninsured only costs!" but as is the system isn't working even w/ out that. No costs dropping. Still uninsured. Still most expensive medical system w/ out anything to show of it. Romney says the preexisting injury crowd needs addressing, b/c he's not actually a heartless bastard. And any idiot knows there needs to be government reform. He clearly felt that way in Mass. The completely private system is not fixing itself. There is clearly a need for government. And guess what...Republicans who say they can fix it and help those w/ out access and it won't cost a dime are just lying! Shocking I know. Completely shocking. So what is the choice Romney? Romneycare or Single Payer? We know the answer. And if it's the private sector compromise then guess what...a true step forward is to make the ACA better and move forward. But that would *gasp* make his position the same as Obama. And he can't win an election on the backs of the crazy right talking like that. So lets here the solution. Lets here the answer, that costs nothing and is so different from Obamacare that it should be repealed dead. Actually....lets here a few specific aspects of the bill that are going to destroy medicine. "Too many people now can afford it and there aren't enough doctors!" Oh...I guess we should be sure to lock them out and pay for them in the end anyway? Now yes, I've been a dick in what I've written above...but lets hear it...go. I want to here what you actually have to say.

Says the man who's AMA doctrine is "no healthcare reform at all even if it is disastrous as is." Can you not work to within a cooperative setting to make government work as opposed to declaring it should not exist?

Not a big Sorkin fan and it screams Sorkin but I enjoyed the first episode. Interesting premise. TV is better that it exists and everyone should give it a shot. Good first episode IMO but we'll see where it goes. Clear liberal agenda but at the same time it's clear it will take shots at everything and the media first and foremost which is only productive. The media is primarily responsible for our ridiculousness political system...be it talk/cable news/what-have-you.

LOL I absolutely knew that was coming. 100%. My view stands, just b/c I'm a lawyer does not mean I would not be against tort reform and I am not in MedMal anyway. In any event, Obamacare actually has some tort reform in it you would like. Edit: And as I stated anyway I am not staunchly opposed to "all" tort reform just most of it.

It doesn't matter what I am. I am just a person. But yes. And that is all I will say about it

Thanks for reading all of you (even if not this then the actual opinion). And I know you all know I lean left and I know you all lean right but I do love debating this stuff with anyone who will entertain it so even if we have different views while I (may arguably ) cross the line into blatant partisanship elsewhere I would like to somehow declare (not that I can lol) that it is not what I intend to do here. It doesn't matter what someone calls something though that isn't how the law works. If they called it a tax and it was clearly a penalty outside the scope of commerce clause that would not get it through. Constitutional analysis is substance over form. Same all over the law. If you draft your will wrong your corpse is SOL. If you **** up your contract w/ someone you are SOL. If you try to assign and interest in land and what you've actually done is lease it you are SOL. Etc... That's fair. And personally to hear that criticism from fellow citizens is infinitely more promising than to hear people say they agree w/ Scalia's approach. I won't get into it now in this post but fundamentally I am not an "originalist" (b/c unlike Scalia I don't know the minds of more than a dozen non-homogeneous framers) or a "strict textualist" in the slightest and it's not political I've read a lot of the mans opinions many of them are absurd...far more absurd than most find this one to be. I may do a write up on his dissent re: tax argument but it's brutal...reading his opinions... Point being acknowledging that you should look to function over form and that they just got it wrong here is miles better than the word splicing you will get from Scalia. Well actually things would have went much better if the DOJ would have been willing to call it tax more readily. They basically would do that only as a last resort. And in any event...Supreme Court isn't applying the smell test regardless of either side. I didn't post the anti-injunction section but it is fairly straight forward and there is legal reasoning but I wouldn't be able to say with a straight face there was absolutely no judicial acrobatics involved there. That said that act is not the constitution and the analysis and history of it's application (as C.J. points out) requires a different analysis. But I understand how "it's a penalty for the anti-injunction act" and "it's a tax per when given constitutional muster" doesn't sit well with anyone but fellow lawyers. lol...that much is clear

..he who lives in a glass house

It's worth noting there was no reference to the Senate argument within Scalia's dissent and he analyzed the reasons it was not a tax in great detail. In the sausage making that is the legislative process it seems should the house acquiesce that is sufficient. Impossible that Scalia would leave that out as ammo for his "regulation not tax" position. The Thomas dissent in its entirety: I dissent for the reasons stated in our joint opinion, but I write separately to say a word about the Commerce Clause. The joint dissent and THE CHIEF JUSTICE correctly apply our precedents to conclude that the IndividualMandate is beyond the power granted to Congress un-der the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Under those precedents, Congress may regulate“economic activity [that] substantially affects interstatecommerce.” United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560 (1995). I adhere to my view that “the very notion of a‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 627 (2000) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also Lopez, supra, at 584–602 (THOMAS, J., concurring); Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 67–69 (2005) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). As I have explained, the Court’s continued use of that test “has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.” Morrison, supra, at 627. The Government’s unprecedentedclaim in this suit that it may regulate not only economic activity but also inactivity that substantially affects interstate commerce is a case in point.

You need not fear. To me the tax section of Roberts opinion makes a much more compelling case than anything that has ever been advanced under the commerce clause. And as predicted, Scalia's word splicing, textualist, never functional, analysis in his dissent was absurd. Scalia basically consented this was within the taxing power (without reaching much analysis on the point) but that since it doesn't use the word tax it is not a tax. He says at one point if they added "in the alternative it is not a penalty but a tax" those magic words would have done the trick. What and joke he's become taking his textualism to the extreme.

LOL holy God Issa is in rare form CSPAN has never been so entertaining. What a dick. Epic fake-yield of time there.

And looks like that is that.

Dante is under the impression that our healthcare system was working well w/ out "government" that we somehow only now have? Government is always in healthcare. They've just took a step to make things better.

Contempt vote to happen on CSPAN soon. Issa further spewing garbage as I type.

Primary care physicians win in this bill. Specialists should be angry but oh well. Poor doctors "good luck getting me to treat you" lol...what thing to say online. You should encourage your politicians to stop destroying Washington and get on doing work to implement and then further refine the bill.

Yup. And everybody needs to accept that. As is said the Supreme Court is not final b/c it is infallible...it is infallible b/c it is final.

He can't repeal it but he won't admit that to the people of the nation. He would need majorities (perhaps super majority) in both houses and the presidency. Indeed this was a great victory for Obama. Now we can get going with it, alter it as it needs to be, the Republicans need to accept it and not try to destroy it or make it fail and just alter it as problems come up. This is law now. This is not going away. Don't hurt the people by being retarded, just perform your legitimate function GOP Congressman and make the law better.

I know nobody cares but I do this not only for this board lol so don't worry. The opinion covers why why it wasn't valid under commerce clause, and medicaid expansion. There are also dissents and concurrences (obviously). Since I am reading through the opinion anyway I copied out some text that address this one issue since some people keep saying "Constitution is dead" etc. That may be your view, even after reading this if you choose to, but if you want to know why it isn't Robert's view and don't want to read the opinion here is a 3 pages edit of the basic reasoning. Everything except underline portions is directly from the opinion and it's all in order...underline parts just describe what large areas were about that I skipped. Basically each paragraph break or "...." shows an area where a cut happened (if you care to know). Also I have no idea why the spacing sometimes is messed up it's just a formatting issue translating form adobe I guess but it isn't too bad. Congress may also “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Im¬posts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for thecommon Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1. Put simply, Con¬gress may tax and spend. This grant gives the FederalGovernment considerable influence even in areas where it cannot directly regulate. The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid,or otherwise control. See, e.g., License Tax Cases, 5 Wall. 462, 471 (1867). And in exercising its spending power,Congress may offer funds to the States, and may condition those offers on compliance with specified conditions. See, e.g., College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecond¬ary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 686 (1999). These offers may well induce the States to adopt policies thatthe Federal Government itself could not impose. See, e.g., South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U. S. 203, 205–206 (1987) (con-ditioning federal highway funds on States raising their drinking age to 21). The reach of the Federal Government’s enumerated powers is broader still because the Constitution authorizes Congress to “make all Laws which shall be necessary andproper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”Art. I, §8, cl. 18. We have long read this provision to giveCongress great latitude in exercising its powers: Beginning in 2014, those who do not comply with themandate must make a “hared responsibility payment” to the Federal Government. §5000A(b)(1). That payment,which the Act describes as a “penalty,” is calculated as a percentage of household income, subject to a floor based ona specified dollar amount and a ceiling based on the aver¬age annual premium the individual would have to pay for qualifying private health insurance. §5000A©. In 2016, for example, the penalty will be 2.5 percent of an individ¬ual’s household income, but no less than $695 and no more than the average yearly premium for insurance that co¬vers 60 percent of the cost of 10 specified services (e.g., prescription drugs and hospitalization). Ibid.; 42 U. S. C. §18022. The Act provides that the penalty will be paid tothe Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner” as tax penalties, such as the penalty for claiming too large an income tax refund. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(g)(1). The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its nor¬mal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are sub¬ject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penalty—for example, those with income below a certainthreshold and members of Indian tribes. §5000A(e). [describes split lower court rulings some striking down on commerce clause others finding it a tax and refusing to rule until it goes into effect per anti-injunction act] The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning thatdoes not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it una¬voidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.” Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule issettled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that whichwill save the Act.” Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government,means the mandate can be regarded as establishing acondition—not owning health insurance—that triggers atax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance.Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earn¬ing income. It is of course true that the Act describes the payment asa “penalty,” not a “tax.” But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12–13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewedas an exercise of Congress’s taxing power. It is up to Con¬gress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to anyparticular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Con¬gress’s choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Con¬gress’s constitutional power to tax. [speaks of precedent where they decide what is and is not in taxing power regardless of Congress calling it a tax (child labor cases…liquor license cases, etc)] (“[M]agic words or labels” should not “disable an otherwise constitutional levy” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U. S. 359, 363 (1941) (“In passing on the constitutionality of a tax law, we are concerned only with its practical operation,not its definition or the precise form of descriptive wordswhich may be applied to it” [more case law on functional approach to court analysis] [more case law on functional approach to court analysis] The same analysis here suggests that the shared re¬sponsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insur¬ance, and, by statute, it can never be more. Second, the individual mandate contains no scienter requirement. Third, the payment is collected solely by theIRS through the normal means of taxation—except thatthe Service is not allowed to use those means most sugges¬tive of a punitive sanction, such as criminal prosecution None of this is to say that the payment is not intended to affect individual conduct. Although the payment willraise considerable revenue, it is plainly designed to ex¬pand health insurance coverage. But taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new. …. Today, federal and state taxes can compose more than half the retail price of cigarettes not just to raise more money, but to encourage people to quit smoking. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insur-ance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Gov¬ernment agrees with that reading, confirming that ifsomeone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insur¬ance, they have fully complied with the law. Indeed, it is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance. … Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws. Sup¬pose Congress enacted a statute providing that every taxpayer who owns a house without energy efficient win¬dows must pay $50 to the IRS. The amount due is adjusted based on factors such as taxable income and joint filing status, and is paid along with the taxpayer’s income tax return. Those whose income is below the filing thresholdneed not pay. The required payment is not called a “tax,”a “penalty,” or anything else. No one would doubt that this law imposed a tax, and was within Congress’s power to tax. That conclusion should not change simply because Congress used the word “penalty” to describe the pay¬ment. Interpreting such a law to be a tax would hardly “mpos[e] a tax through judicial legislation.” Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had thepower to impose the exaction in §5000A under the taxing power, and that §5000A need not be read to do more thanimpose a tax. That is sufficient to sustain it. The “ques¬tion of the constitutionality of action taken by Congressdoes not depend on recitals of the power which it under¬takes to exercise.” [talks extensively about direct tax evolution to rebut argument this tax is not “fairly apportioned” and sites case law that shows this cannot be considered a direct tax possibly since the days of Madison and at least since the late 1880s] A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstainfrom commerce, perhaps it should be similarly troubling topermit Congress to impose a tax for not doing something. Three considerations allay this concern. First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. Second, Congress’s ability to use its taxing power toinfluence conduct is not without limits. A few of our cases policed these limits aggressively, invalidating punitiveexactions obviously designed to regulate behavior other¬wise regarded at the time as beyond federal authority. …. “‘there comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax when it losesits character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of regulation and punishment.’” ….. We have already explained that the shared responsibil¬ity payment’s practical characteristics pass muster as atax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. Third, although the breadth of Congress’s power to taxis greater than its power to regulate commerce, the taxingpower does not give Congress the same degree of controlover individual behavior. ….. Congress’s authority under the taxingpower is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain in¬dividuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Be¬cause the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our roleto forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.

Your argument is that they should but they shouldn't enact an amendment to do so? They need one. It's legitimate to say you don't think we should. Or even then we would be well served to but ultimately we shouldn't amend to do so. But so say we should, but we shouldn't enact a amendment empowering us to do so, is nonsensical.

Wise words from a man I almost always disagree with. Impeach the C.J. b/c he didn't vote along the perceived ideological lines? LOL