SCOTUS to rule on Obamacare sometime this week

[Doc]

Medical Care is no different that anything else is life, its who you know and if you have leverage to get stuff done.

 

If you always want and appointment and someone on the inside to grease the gears for you, make a annual donation..... you can always call up your giving contact and ask them for help getting into providers... it works like a charm.

 

I don't make a donation because I work in a Hospital, but that is how you get IN and move to the front of the lines while everybody elese waits....

Oh, so bribe someone at the doctor's office? But isn't that discriminatory against the poor, something Obamacare was supposed to fix?

[B-Large]

Oh, so bribe someone at the doctor's office? But isn't that discriminatory against the poor, something Obamacare was supposed to fix?

 

 

In not so many words, yes. If you want leverage, donors get it. The HC system is not egalitarian by any means, and your well-to-do are in the next week while medicaid patients wait for 4-5 months.

 

the ACA does not fix privilage, or fix the fact that some people know how to use their influence to get what they want...

[Joe Miner]

Medical Care is no different that anything else is life, its who you know and if you have leverage to get stuff done.

 

If you always want and appointment and someone on the inside to grease the gears for you, make a annual donation..... you can always call up your giving contact and ask them for help getting into providers... it works like a charm.

 

I don't make a donation because I work in a Hospital, but that is how you get IN and move to the front of the lines while everybody elese waits....

 

 

 

they poll well as very popular programs....

 

 

as for ed and tax code, agree 100%

 

So as long as they are popular programs, that means they are working well?

 

Really, I'd like to hope you're smarter than that.

[Juror#8]

Oh #8 you little rascal. At first I thought you were on my side. Anyway, Juror, do you honestly it's ever a good policy for the government to control anything? Do they do anything efficiently or well? Anything that comes in on budget? Were talking another 18% or so of the economy under their control. To me this is the worst of options.

 

 

 

You know what, I agree with you on all those points. It's a bit of cognitive dissonance, I know.

 

I'm just so tired of everyone wanting things to hurry up and not get done.

 

Nothing begets nothing. At least something can inspire improvement.

[dayman]

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.

Edited June 28, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Juror#8]

Yes, gov't iterations work out well.

 

Look how SS and Medicare have vastly improved since their beginnings.

 

Also education, and the tax code.

 

All things the gov't continues to improve.

 

You !@#$ing idiot.

 

There ya go! Let it out. Feel better?

 

You have a couple of broad generalizations that reflect nothing but your disdain for government institutions, some opinions masquerading as facts, dependent clauses just hanging there for effect, stir, add in a dash of your naivete, BOOM!

 

Schhit Sandwich.

 

Express this in a way that dignifies a response and I'll get back to you.

 

Until then, I'll respond in a correspondingly bad fashion, and in a way that might be more intrinsically familiar to you:

 

rack city apple, bAd. M$onee guvmint[gldold. ma gatt diP 5 .trail miX 4 mooNSHinwe. obammmaa hemean n tax ma licka. teef need brush. socIALIS pig pinko bich queer drunck sleep

Edited June 28, 2012 by Juror#8

[Rob's House]

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

You're right. This is just the nail in the coffin. It's outside both the letter and spirit of the constitution. Probably the worst decision handed down since Wickard.

[Andrew in CA]

You're right. This is just the nail in the coffin. It's outside both the letter and spirit of the constitution. Probably the worst decision handed down since Wickard.

Well, if you hate Wickard you can take solace in today's opinion-- Part III-A essentially put up a giant road block on Commerce Clause expansion. After this, it's hard to see the Court expanding the power unless they overrule this opinion.

[IDBillzFan]

You're right. This is just the nail in the coffin. It's outside both the letter and spirit of the constitution. Probably the worst decision handed down since Wickard.

On the upside, there are now discussions all over the internet regarding the fact that Obamacare being a tax and not a penalty will face other lawsuits because it originated in the Senate, the Senate can not initiate tax increases. Probably desperate folks reaching for anything, but the simple fact remains, the one way to get rid of this ridiculous law is to put enough people in office to get it repealed come January.

[Rob's House]

Well, if you hate Wickard you can take solace in today's opinion-- Part III-A essentially put up a giant road block on Commerce Clause expansion. After this, it's hard to see the Court expanding the power unless they overrule this opinion.

There's certainly comfort in that. I just found out it was allowed as a tax which makes the ruling less repugnant to the constitution than a commerce clause ruling would be. I'm going to read the case before opining any further.

 

Edit: There's no way possible for Obama to claim he didn't raise taxed on people earning < $250k.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Rob's House

[Dante]

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.

I never said there are not problems. I only said that government isn't the answer. Personally, I have no problems with healthcare. Over the last few years health issues have forced me to use Kaiser quite a bit and the experience has been as positive as it could be expected under the circumstances. We you need quality care it's well worth paying the premiums to get good care. You don't truly think about it until you need it. A little fear in the mix, paying for healthcare is not a concern. I think something that gets lost in all this is the degradation in quality of care that is sure to follow if government is in control. I fear for a lack of doctors. I fear for a lack of research.

[Rob's House]

On the upside, there are now discussions all over the internet regarding the fact that Obamacare being a tax and not a penalty will face other lawsuits because it originated in the Senate, the Senate can not initiate tax increases. Probably desperate folks reaching for anything, but the simple fact remains, the one way to get rid of this ridiculous law is to put enough people in office to get it repealed come January.

That's a legitimate concern, but anyone recognizing it is likely to get birther treatment.

[Andrew in CA]

There's certainly comfort in that. I just found out it was allowed as a tax which makes the ruling less repugnant to the constitution than a commerce clause ruling would be. I'm going to read the case before opining any further.

 

Edit: There's no way possible for Obama to claim he didn't raise taxed on people earning < $250k.

The only part I've read so far is the commerce clause section. I was really surprised it was not held up on those grounds--not because I have any love for commerce clause power, but I read thought that argument was far stronger than the tax argument. Anyway, I know jack about tax power and haven't read the whole opinion yet, so I'll join you in withholding further comment till I've sorted through it.

[dayman]

I never said there are not problems. I only said that government isn't the answer. Personally, I have no problems with healthcare. Over the last few years health issues have forced me to use Kaiser quite a bit and the experience has been as positive as it could be expected under the circumstances. We you need quality care it's well worth paying the premiums to get good care. You don't truly think about it until you need it. A little fear in the mix, paying for healthcare is not a concern. I think something that gets lost in all this is the degradation in quality of care that is sure to follow if government is in control. I fear for a lack of doctors. I fear for a lack of research.

 

You need not fear.

 

The only part I've read so far is the commerce clause section. I was really surprised it was not held up on those grounds--not because I have any love for commerce clause power, but I read thought that argument was far stronger than the tax argument. Anyway, I know jack about tax power and haven't read the whole opinion yet, so I'll join you in withholding further comment till I've sorted through it.

 

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.

Edited June 28, 2012 by TheNewBills

[/dev/null]

On the upside, there are now discussions all over the internet regarding the fact that Obamacare being a tax and not a penalty will face other lawsuits because it originated in the Senate, the Senate can not initiate tax increases

Says who, the Constellation? pfft, nobody pays attention to that dusty old papyrus written like a thousand years ago by dead white guys

[dayman]

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.

 

You're right. This is just the nail in the coffin. It's outside both the letter and spirit of the constitution. Probably the worst decision handed down since Wickard.

 

 

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.

Edited June 28, 2012 by TheNewBills

[B-Man]

Politico

 

Tone of dissent shows health law could have been wiped out

 

The statement Justice Anthony Kennedy read from the bench Thursday shows just how close the Affordable Care Act came to being annihilated by the Supreme Court.

 

“In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety,” Kennedy said.

 

In the written dissent, Kennedy was joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, writing against the majority decision upholding the individual mandate under Congress’s taxing power. The dissenting justices noted that the law refers to it as a requirement and a penalty with only the “flimsiest of indications to the contrary.”

 

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, rewrites the law, Kennedy said in his bench statement.

 

"What Congress calls a penalty, we call a tax," Kennedy said. "In short, the court imposes a tax when Congress deliberately rejected a tax."

 

In the written dissent, the four justices argued that “judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling.”

 

“Taxes have never been popular … and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Repre­sentatives,” the justices wrote. “That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off.”

 

At issue is not whether Congress had the power to frame the minimum coverage provision as a tax, but whether it actually did so, the dissenting justices wrote.

 

“In a few cases, this Court has held that a ‘tax’ imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty,” the dissent reads. “But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power — even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty.”

 

 

.

[Joe Miner]

There ya go! Let it out. Feel better?

 

You have a couple of broad generalizations that reflect nothing but your disdain for government institutions, some opinions masquerading as facts, dependent clauses just hanging there for effect, stir, add in a dash of your naivete, BOOM!

 

Schhit Sandwich.

 

Express this in a way that dignifies a response and I'll get back to you.

 

Until then, I'll respond in a correspondingly bad fashion, and in a way that might be more intrinsically familiar to you:

 

rack city apple, bAd. M$onee guvmint[gldold. ma gatt diP 5 .trail miX 4 mooNSHinwe. obammmaa hemean n tax ma licka. teef need brush. socIALIS pig pinko bich queer drunck sleep

 

Your asinine and pompous opinions have been met with exactly the type of response they deserve.

 

Feel free to keep stating gems like doing something is better than doing nothing. It's that kind of stupidity that keeps this place going.

[PastaJoe]

I started the day thinking that the result would be like when the Bills signed Mark Anderson, good but not great, but then was pleasantly surprised when they went all in and got Mario Williams. Thankfully Roberts put law over ideology.

 

A constitutional law whose idea was started by the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989, and then implemented as Romneycare in Mass., which it was modeled after, but is now opposed for political reasons because it was enacted by a Democrat. In 20 years people will look upon this and same-sex marriage like we do now about the Civil Rights Act. Lots of protests and claims it will be the ruin of the country when enacted, but now considered common sense.

 

The best thing Romney could have done to win over moderates would have been to embrace Romneycare. But he couldn't and still win the primary, and now he's in too deep to go back to his previous stand from 2006; "With regards to the individual mandate, the individual responsibility program that I proposed, I was very pleased that the compromise between the two houses includes the personal responsibility mandate. That is essential for bringing the health care costs down for everyone and getting everyone the health insurance they need."

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/old-video-shows-romney-lauding-old-health-care-mandate/

 

Justice Ginsberg even cited Romneycare as part of the reason to uphold the Affordable Care Act. 'Writing on the subject of providing affordable insurance to those with preexisting conditions, Ginsburg noted that Massachusetts “cracked [the] adverse selection problem.” and highlighted briefs explaining “the success of Massachusetts’ reforms.”

 

Under the Massachusetts health system, most residents were required to buy insurance so that insurance companies wouldn’t be left only with sick customers – and thus skyrocketing premiums.

 

“As a result, federal lawmakers observed, Massachusetts succeeded where other States had failed,” Ginsburg wrote.

 

Ginsburg also referenced a brief “noting … the Commonwealth’s reforms” which “reduced the number of uninsured residents to less than 2%, the lowest rate in the Nation, and cut the amount of uncompensated care by a third… In coupling the minimum coverage provision with guaranteed­ issue and community-rating prescriptions, Congress followed Massachusetts’ lead.”

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/06/ginsburg-opinion-cites-massachusetts-law-127565.html

[Dante]

Right. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and one of the greatest Constitutional lawyers of the last two decades is an idiot.

Our prez is a idiot so why not a supreme court justice. Not that unreasonable really