SCOTUS to rule on Obamacare sometime this week

[erynthered]

Yes, it might work as a political stunt. But in terms of generating meaningful action or debate it would be a failure.

 

 

[dayman]

I'll try to simplify this for your special brand of stupidity.

 

Can Congress tax - Yes

Can Congress penalize - No

 

Was this written to be a tax - No

Is it now a tax due to Court ruling - Yes

 

 

And I'll say it again, if you know anything about how courts construe anything...be it a tax/penalty, be it a conveyance of land, be it anything under the sun save a few specific examples they look to substance over form...there are few areas of the law that "magic words" make a difference and this was never one of them. The oral arguments were bizarre b/e the gov't lawyer was hamstrung and wouldn't hit the ball...but regardless of what he or member of congress would admit, the court called it what it is. A penalty administered by the IRS, w/ no criminal component, that is what a tax is.

[WilliamCody]

Amid economic recession, a spiraling federal debt, and accelerating increases in government health spending, they proposed a bill that has made these problems worse.“Americans were promised lower health care costs. They’re going up.

 

“Americans were promised lower premiums. They’re going up.

 

“Most Americans were promised their taxes wouldn’t change. They’re going up.

 

“Seniors were promised Medicare would be protected. It was raided to pay for a new entitlement instead.

 

“Americans were promised it would create jobs. The CBO predicts it will lead to nearly 1 million fewer jobs.

 

“Americans were promised they could keep their plan if they liked it, yet millions have learned they can’t.

 

“And the President of the United States himself promised up and down that this bill was not a tax.

 

“This was one of the Democrats’ top selling points — because they knew it would have never passed if they said it was. The Supreme Court has spoken. This law is a tax.

 

“This bill was sold to the American people on a deception. But it’s not just that the promises about this law weren’t kept. It’s that it’s made the problems it was meant to solve even worse.

 

“The supposed cure has proved to be worse than the disease.

 

“So it’s not just that the promises about this law weren’t kept. It’s that it has made the problems it was meant to solve even worse.

 

 

http://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7fc835cd-28a3-44bf-9903-4f8cbbdbff5e&ContentType_id=c19bc7a5-2bb9-4a73-b2ab-3c1b5191a72b&Group_id=0fd6ddca-6a05-4b26-8710-a0b7b59a8f1f

 

The bolded are a result of CORPORATE policy, not government.

[Rob's House]

RIP constitution

[Joe Miner]

Yes, saying that something needs to be done for 50 years and doing nothing is better than doing something.

 

I didn't make that claim.

 

You are the one saying that something needed to be done, so you are happy that something was done.

 

That's a stupid position to take.

[erynthered]

The bolded are a result of CORPORATE policy, not government.

 

 

So the other ones wont work for you, eh?

 

 

THE BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY. Period!

[B-Man]

The bolded are a result of CORPORATE policy, not government.

 

 

Respectfully Mr. Cody.......those corporate positions did not change in a vacuum,

 

there were a response to government policy changes....

 

.

[dayman]

RIP constitution

 

 

LOL it's fine to feel this way but you are about 75 years late to say this.

[WilliamCody]

Respectfully Mr. Cody.......those corporate positions did not change in a vacuum,

 

there were a response to government policy changes....

 

.

 

Right. But government policies don't dictate corporate policies. They set parameters.

[birdog1960]

Personally, no. For a family with tight income, yes.

 

Have to honest, I don't think it will come to the underlined above.... I can see a scenario where many people opt out, and then there will be justification in some legislators minds that we need "universal coverage" for these people...

 

your know its coming, I have maintained that has always been the stretch goal of progressives....

and you would be correct

[dayman]

Respectfully Mr. Cody.......those corporate positions did not change in a vacuum,

 

there were a response to government policy changes....

 

.

'

 

B-Man that man has no way to prove anything he said b/c there is no way to prove it he's talking out of his ass to try and scare you into being violently against a Bill that hurts his political party. Plain and simple. Wake up.

[WilliamCody]

'

 

B-Man that man has no way to prove anything he said b/c there is no way to prove it he's talking out of his ass to try and scare you into being violently against a Bill that hurts his political party. Plain and simple. Wake up.

 

This guy really sounds like he has a clue.

[Joe Miner]

And I'll say it again, if you know anything about how courts construe anything...be it a tax/penalty, be it a conveyance of land, be it anything under the sun save a few specific examples they look to substance over form...there are few areas of the law that "magic words" make a difference and this was never one of them. The oral arguments were bizarre b/e the gov't lawyer was hamstrung and wouldn't hit the ball...but regardless of what he or member of congress would admit, the court called it what it is. A penalty administered by the IRS, w/ no criminal component, that is what a tax is.

 

I understand what you're saying, and I understand courts have done this in the past.

 

We'll disagree as to whether it should be the job of the court to judge their interpretation of the substance of the law and not judge the actual law that was written.

[B-Man]

'

 

B-Man that man has no way to prove anything he said b/c there is no way to prove it he's talking out of his ass to try and scare you into being violently against a Bill that hurts his political party. Plain and simple.

 

Wake up.

 

 

 

Huh...whats that....where am I?

 

LOL...Thanks for your concern, but my opinions are not formed by what I read on a political message board.

 

My 38 years in the healthcare field is sufficient to know how this bill will affect us.

 

.

[Duck_dodgers007]

RIP constitution

What?

[dayman]

I understand what you're saying, and I understand courts have done this in the past.

 

We'll disagree as to whether it should be the job of the court to judge their interpretation of the substance of the law and not judge the actual law that was written.

 

 

Imagine a scenario where form and not substance ruled. If you think that calling a penalty administered exclusively by the IRS in the regular course of their collections activities with no criminal competent that comes from a Bill written by the tax committee is not a tax is absurd we disagree on that...but if the mere words were what the court used guide them far more absurd results would be all over the law. Lawyers know how to call something one thing when it's another thing all together...that's why the courts look to substance...otherwise the law would be meaningless.

[Joe Miner]

Imagine a scenario where form and not substance ruled. If you think that calling a penalty administered exclusively by the IRS in the regular course of their collections activities with no criminal competent that comes from a Bill written by the tax committee is not a tax is absurd we disagree on that...but if the mere words were what the court used guide them far more absurd results would be all over the law. Lawyers know how to call something one thing when it's another thing all together...that's why the courts look to substance...otherwise the law would be meaningless.

 

Keep up skippy.

 

It doesn't have to be either form or interpreted substance. It can and should be both.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Joe Miner

[RkFast]

The bolded are a result of CORPORATE policy, not government.

 

So now companies that dont lose money to keep employees are greedy, too huh?

[Taro T]

No, you have to pay the bill. If you are under 133% of the poverty line you basically will have medicaid unless your governor hates poor people and refuses to take money to expand under the ACA...if you are over 133% and have no insurance paying the tax year to year and get sick then you get a bill and if it pushes you to bankruptcy then so be it. This bill IS about personal responsibility at it's heart.

 

 

 

 

I've read a lot of Conlaw just trust me this is what courts do as a matter of course. Just look at the lower courts in this very case...that's what they were doing. Courts uphold the bill if there is a reasonable construction that allows it, if not the cut out the cancerous part, and if they can't cut out the cancerous part without disrupting the entire scheme of the bill they take the whole thing down. That's just how it's done take me at my word I've read a lot of Conlaw.

You will, of course, understand why I won't/don't.

[IDBillzFan]

This guy really sounds like he has a clue.

Liberals agreeing with liberals. How odd. Soon you may see me agreeing with a conservative.