SCOTUS to rule on Obamacare sometime this week

[Joe Miner]

Wow, granted the ability to tax- WOW......

 

 

Now its time to start streamlining that 2400 pages behemouth to make it Work

 

So you look to the idiots who wrote a behemoth of bill, but didn't read it, to have the sense to streamline it and make it work?

 

What possible history can you be looking at to suggest that will happen?

[/dev/null]

Not really.

True, not all

But most

 

[WilliamCody]

That won't happen B....................and you know it.

 

 

 

its a sad day for all Americans.

 

.

 

Explain why it is such a sad day.

[Joe Miner]

I thought it was 55 it would go down, 45 it would be upheld. Ultimately I predicted it would be upheld. Nobody knew.

 

So you were talking out of your ass when you claimed it was predictable. Good to know

[Doc]

Except that it was never ONCE called a tax in the 2,700 pages of the law. Because it never would have been passed if it had been called one. Unbelievable.

[B-Man]

Not really.

 

 

Yes, it is.

 

perhaps you could write an 8 paragraph reponse (that is full of hyperbole) to support your opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

But it won't change a thing.

 

 

.

[IDBillzFan]

Interestingly, the court is stating that states can opt out. This seems to be actually a BAD thing for ACA.

[WilliamCody]

So you look to the idiots who wrote a behemoth of bill, but didn't read it, to have the sense to streamline it and make it work?

 

What possible history can you be looking at to suggest that will happen?

 

It's going to fall on the insurance and health care industry to make it work. Congress can really do nothing but pass a few small measures way to late. Luckily most companies were preparing for the law to be upheld so this is not going to be a shock.

 

Interestingly, the court is stating that states can opt out. This seems to be actually a BAD thing for ACA.

 

We are going to have to see about this one. Supposedly, this is the most complex part of the decision and know on has really waded through it completely yet. It is unclear whether the narrow ruling applies only to Medicaid or to the entire ACA

 

Interestingly, all four dissenters say the entire ACA should be invalid. Looks like this one is entirely on Roberts.

[B-Large]

That won't happen B....................and you know it.

 

 

 

its a sad day for all Americans.

 

.

 

Its bittersweet for me, B- while I value the progress of being able to purchase insurance as an indivdual, and not be locked out of the market because my wife has pre-existing condition.....

 

This only means one thing.... a more powerful, furter reaching and self righteous representative Government.... that in and of itself has it own dangers, as we all know.

 

I have been supportive of the ACA from the beginnning, I have alway been clear about that. However, I will not pretend that 2400 worth of Pelosi schlopp is required legislation. This will, this issue needs ALOT of work, not only from Democrats who throw is all at the wall, but from the Conservatives who keep it is check.

[erynthered]

They must be high fiving in the white house.

[Doc]

They must be high fiving in the white house.

Of course. Why wouldn't libs celebrate adding a new country-killing entitlement?

[WilliamCody]

Link to full decision:

 

ACA 5-4

Edited June 28, 2012 by WilliamCody

[B-Man]

Its bittersweet for me, B- while I value the progress of being able to purchase insurance as an indivdual, and not be locked out of the market because my wife has pre-existing condition.....

 

This only means one thing.... a more powerful, furter reaching and self righteous representative Government.... that in and of itself has it own dangers, as we all know.

 

I have been supportive of the ACA from the beginnning, I have alway been clear about that. However, I will not pretend that 2400 worth of Pelosi schlopp is required legislation. This will, this issue needs ALOT of work, not only from Democrats who throw is all at the wall, but from the Conservatives who keep it is check.

 

 

I understand. You have always been very clear in your statements of support over the year.

 

I have no confidence that the same "lawmakers" who wrote the over-reaching bill, will now "work" to fix it.

 

and as for Cody's response that there is little that the Congress can now do, its up to the insurance companies...............thats a farce.

 

.

[B-Large]

So you look to the idiots who wrote a behemoth of bill, but didn't read it, to have the sense to streamline it and make it work?

 

What possible history can you be looking at to suggest that will happen?

 

there have already been pieces that have been taken out as unfeasibale like the CLASS portion helping support LTC insurance.

 

Like I said in reponse to B-Man, its bittersweet for me. I can't imagine you need nor can keep track of 2400 pages of legislation.

 

to your point- there is little evidence of it... I can only hope there will eventually be some bipartisan efforts to scale down this law, cut out the BS, and make it purposeful

[LeviF]

(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the "hared responsibility payment" as a "penalty," not a "tax." That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress's power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, "[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application." United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33-35.

(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. [citation witheld]. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress's choice of language - stating that individuals "shall" obtain insurance or pay a "penalty - does not require reading 5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169-174. Pp. 35-40.

 

"The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance." Glad the court is deciding what I can or cannot afford. Criminy.

Edited June 28, 2012 by LeviF91

[WilliamCody]

I understand. You have always been very clear in your statements of support over the year.

 

I have no confidence that the same "lawmakers" who wrote the over-reaching bill, will now "work" to fix it.

 

and as for Cody's response that there is little that the Congress can now do, its up to the insurance companies...............thats a farce.

 

.

 

How so? And even if they could, the insurance companies and health care industry have been preparing for a year and a half for the law as its written. Any changes now would simply delay implementation. Unless, of course, this is the goal, it would be wise to let the industries deal with the reform in a way that best suits them.

[3rdnlng]

If states can opt out, the ones that do can expect to attract more businesses.

[Juror#8]

True, not all

But most

 

 

Nope. It's a great day for those who want to see something ultimately happen with respect to healthcare reform.

 

All those fu((ks and fairies who said "something needs to be done, but not this..." have been saying that **** for 40 years.

 

This is the only semblance of movement on the healthcare front in generations. Seriously....the only significant movement. The echo chamber had their chance to do something and didn't. They complained about alternatives ONLY when someone endeavored to ACTUALLY do something about the broken system. Then, all of a

fu(((king sudden, miraculously, different solutions arise! Well ain't that something!

 

Eureka! Look at that! Now people have flippin ideas.

 

Bunch of whiney reactive dolts they are.

 

If this precipitates movement with respect to actual change in the healthcare infrastructure - which it will undoubtedly do, ipso facto - then damn the torpedoes, let's go!

 

It's better than hearing people talking about how it sucks, and something needs to be done, year after year after year after year....

 

Apparently medicare and the GI Bill went though similar issues. "It's socialism, It's socialism, doom, doom, dismay...."

 

Fu(((k that.

Edited June 28, 2012 by Juror#8

[WilliamCody]

If states can opt out, the ones that do can expect to attract more businesses.

 

Corporate business. Small business can't simply up and move states.

[Joe Miner]

(a) The Affordable Care Act describes the "hared responsibility payment" as a "penalty," not a "tax." That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress's power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach, "[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application." United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294. Pp. 33-35.

(b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation. [citation witheld]. None of this is to say that payment is not intended to induce the purchase of health insurance. But the mandate need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Affordable Care Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insurance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. And Congress's choice of language - stating that individuals "shall" obtain insurance or pay a "penalty - does not require reading 5000A as punishing unlawful conduct. It may also be read as imposing a tax on those who go without insurance. See New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 169-174. Pp. 35-40.

 

"So even though Congress wrote a law that doesn't say anything that would make it constitutional, we can see what they meant and we've fixed it up for them."

 

Nope. It's a great day for those who want to see something ultimately happen with respect to healthcare reform.

 

All those fu((ks and fairies who said "something needs to be done, but not this..." have been saying that **** for 40 years.

 

This is the only semblance of movement on the healthcare front in generations. Seriously....the only significant movement. The echo chamber had their chance to do something and didn't. They complained about alternatives when someone endeavored to ACTUALLY do something. Then, all of a fu(((king sudden, miraculously, different solutions arise.

 

Eureka. Look at that! Now people have flippin ideas.

 

Bunch of whiney reactive dolts they are.

 

If this precipitates movement with respect to actual change in the healthcare infrastructure - which it will undoubtedly do, ipso facto - then damn the torpedoes, let's go!

 

It's better than hearing people talking about how it sucks, and something needs to be done, year after year after year after year....

 

Apparently medicare and the GI Bill went though similar issues. "It's socialism, It's socialism, doom, doom, dismay...."

 

Fu(((k that.

 

Yes, doing something is always better than doing nothing.