Jump to content


Scotus Upholds Hussein Health


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 AmScray

AmScray

    Honk

  • Members
  • 4,005 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Favorite Poker Game:wrhsf235yu

Posted 28 June 2012 - 06:21 AM

I get this awesome mental image of Marx and Lenin forcibly tag-teaming Ayn Rand, then HBlask creating a theory as to why she should've seen it coming and hired a private security escort to prevent it from happening.
Posted Image

#2 CaneBrain

CaneBrain

    The chosen few....

  • Members
  • 14,896 posts
  • Location:The NFL Films Vault
  • Favorite Poker Game:5/10 NLHE (100 max buy in)

Posted 28 June 2012 - 06:58 AM

It's way better because every Republican was so sure this was going down. And now, they can't criticize the Supreme Court or they will look ridiculous. Fun stuff.
"Give a little bit.....give a little bit of your chips to me...."

#3 LongLiveYorke

LongLiveYorke

    Ending the world one proton at a time

  • Members
  • 8,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manhattan
  • Interests:fizziks, teh maths, Raid-o-head, Rod Reynolds

Posted 28 June 2012 - 07:01 AM

The argument made by the court is pretty obvious, no? The "mandate" simply removes a tax credit. Obamacare is just a new tax loophole, so of course it's constitutional. That should have been the solicitor general's primary argument, since it's clearly correct.

#4 FCP Bob

FCP Bob

    Limit Holdem Dinosaur

  • Root Admin
  • 26,990 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scarberia

Posted 28 June 2012 - 07:52 AM

http://www.scotusblo...date-its-a-tax/
Bob

info@fullcontactpoker.com

#5 LongLiveYorke

LongLiveYorke

    Ending the world one proton at a time

  • Members
  • 8,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manhattan
  • Interests:fizziks, teh maths, Raid-o-head, Rod Reynolds

Posted 28 June 2012 - 08:07 AM

View PostFCP Bob, on 28 June 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

This line is pretty misleading, no:The ACA’s key provision now amounts to an invitation to buy insurance, rather than an order to do so, with a not-very-big tax penalty for going without.The word "now" just isn't correct, the Supreme Court decision didn't change anything, that's always what it was. They just pointed it out.

#6 iZuma

iZuma

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,581 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 June 2012 - 08:23 AM

the supreme court needs to be tried and hangged for treason!but really though, kinda crazy that kennedy dissented and roberts upheld huh.

#7 AmScray

AmScray

    Honk

  • Members
  • 4,005 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Favorite Poker Game:wrhsf235yu

Posted 28 June 2012 - 08:25 AM

Roberts has always had a sissy streak.My favorite part about Scalia is that you just know deep down, beneath it all, it takes every ounce of self control he has to keep from breaking the nearest bottle and threatening to cut the other justices.Anyway, I oppose this because it just keeps the shitbag insurance companies involved ($$$$$$Campaign Contributions$$$$$$$)This throws up a hurdle to national care that will take 50 years to undo.Raises an interesting philosophical question.If you can partially remedy a horrible situation by sabotaging your chances at arriving at a truly optimal outcome, is that efficient?At what point do you decide you have no other choice but to cut off the arm pinned beneath the rock?At the first pang of hunger, or when the coyotes are circling?
Posted Image

#8 JustDoIt

JustDoIt

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 882 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:Omaha H/L

Posted 28 June 2012 - 08:48 AM

View PostLongLiveYorke, on 28 June 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

The argument made by the court is pretty obvious, no? The "mandate" simply removes a tax credit. Obamacare is just a new tax loophole, so of course it's constitutional. That should have been the solicitor general's primary argument, since it's clearly correct.
No what the court did was this. All eight said the Mandate was unconstitutional, then 5 rewrote the statue saying it was a tax.
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.

Mark Twain

#9 JustDoIt

JustDoIt

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 882 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:Omaha H/L

Posted 28 June 2012 - 08:57 AM

View PostCaneBrain, on 28 June 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

It's way better because every Republican was so sure this was going down. And now, they can't criticize the Supreme Court or they will look ridiculous. Fun stuff.
We, that believe the court does not always do their job and interpret law are not looking ridiculous today because all the court did was rewrite the statue. Your an attorney, don't whine when some judge does this to you.
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.

Mark Twain

#10 akoff

akoff

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,942 posts
  • Location:The 700 Level
  • Interests:Golf, investing, Eagles football, golf, baseball, coaching Little League and golf
  • Favorite Poker Game:PLO

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:12 AM

long term the poor will get the worse of this again...it will take some time obviously but it will happen.in just under 4 yrs Obama and crew have manage to screw the 3 to 5 generations worse then all of the previous mistakes combined...nice work by them.The SC just enabled it...real well done.
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama

#11 Pot Odds RAC

Pot Odds RAC

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 7,172 posts
  • Location:Motown
  • Favorite Poker Game:Live NL TxHE

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:16 AM

View PostJustDoIt, on 28 June 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

No what the court did was this. All eight said the Mandate was unconstitutional, then 5 rewrote the statue saying it was a tax.
Even though outside of Court Obama has been arguing that it isn't a Tax.

#12 SilentSnow

SilentSnow

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,185 posts
  • Location:parallel universe

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:29 AM

View PostAmScray, on 28 June 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

Roberts has always had a sissy streak.Anyway, I oppose this because it just keeps the shitbag insurance companies involved ($$$$$$Campaign Contributions$$$$$$$)This throws up a hurdle to national care that will take 50 years to undo.Raises an interesting philosophical question.If you can partially remedy a horrible situation by sabotaging your chances at arriving at a truly optimal outcome, is that efficient?
It's not him being a sissy. This court led by Roberts is more in the tank for corporate interests than any court ever. The corporations really wanted the individual mandate to stay. They could have been screwed if it got overturned.As for overturning it, I would have been in favor of that. While this law isn't even remotely as bad as fanatical neocons pretend it is, it does only solve maybe 10% of the health care problem. You are right that it probably will make it more difficult to solve the remaining 90%.Of course this depends on if you have any faith whatsoever in the American political system. If you have some faith that they can do the right thing and put in health care laws the rest of the world has then repeal is a no-brainer. But if you have close to zero faith, then 10% might be better than nothing.As for Ayn Rand, I think she was in to that sort of thing. But maybe only if you were a producer.

"I am a series of electronic pulses in a vast array of networked silicon lifeforms."

#13 Pot Odds RAC

Pot Odds RAC

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 7,172 posts
  • Location:Motown
  • Favorite Poker Game:Live NL TxHE

Posted 28 June 2012 - 09:34 AM

So Obama cannot run on the platform of not having raised taxes.

#14 AmScray

AmScray

    Honk

  • Members
  • 4,005 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Favorite Poker Game:wrhsf235yu

Posted 28 June 2012 - 11:10 AM

View PostPot Odds RAC, on 28 June 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

So Obama cannot run on the platform of not having raised taxes.
No, but as taxes go, so rarely are they articulable in a straight line, cost to benefit sort of way.This is. Historically, nobody opposes those so long as there's some sort of value for their dollar.When it's "we have to raise taxes to deal with the budget", people usualy get pissed at the budget and all politicians involved.When it's "we have to raise taxes because Hitler just rolled into Norway, your kid's about to head over there with a rifle and he needs lots of bullets...:", nobody gives a **** about paying those taxes.Whether or not this health scheme constitutes 'value' is yet to be seen.As best I can tell, some bubblegum just got shoved into cracks in the dam, while democrats and republicans argued over what ratio to mix the cement but more importantly, who would get the lucrative cement contracts and how the law might ultimately be in service to the broader cement industry.I firmly believe this was a catastrophe not because the plan itself totally fails to remedy certain issues (it does fix some issues), but because the objective should be a 360 degree, comprehensive national health service. This cluster**** just sent us down the ideological rabbit hole without a bottom and now, we've added 'climbing out of this hole' to the gigantic list of shit we have to deal with to eventually arrive at a sane, 1st world health regime.It just went from being hopefully within my lifetime to hopefully within my grandkids lifetime.
Posted Image

#15 mrdannyg

mrdannyg

    Cheese Salesman

  • Members
  • 20,267 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 June 2012 - 11:40 AM

I hate it when Scram makes so much damn sense.
Long signatures are really annoying.

#16 CaneBrain

CaneBrain

    The chosen few....

  • Members
  • 14,896 posts
  • Location:The NFL Films Vault
  • Favorite Poker Game:5/10 NLHE (100 max buy in)

Posted 28 June 2012 - 01:33 PM

View PostJustDoIt, on 28 June 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

No what the court did was this. All eight said the Mandate was unconstitutional, then 5 rewrote the statue saying it was a tax.
Actually it looks like the four liberal justices were fine with the mandate on commerce clause grounds.
"Give a little bit.....give a little bit of your chips to me...."

#17 colonel Feathers

colonel Feathers

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,081 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 28 June 2012 - 10:15 PM

View PostCaneBrain, on 28 June 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

Actually it looks like the four liberal justices were fine with the mandate on commerce clause grounds.
IF im not mistaken I believe Roberts wrote in his opinion that the people cant count on the courts to undo bad electoral decisions they make.If thats accurate then it was a helluva shot at the electorate.
I dont suffer from delusions

I enjoy them

#18 JustDoIt

JustDoIt

    Poker Forum Groupie

  • Members
  • 882 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:Omaha H/L

Posted 29 June 2012 - 07:20 AM

View PostCaneBrain, on 28 June 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

Actually it looks like the four liberal justices were fine with the mandate on commerce clause grounds.
Your right, that's kind of scary. Of course taxes was not part of oral arguments and again it not the courts job to rewrite the statue.
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.

Mark Twain

#19 mrdannyg

mrdannyg

    Cheese Salesman

  • Members
  • 20,267 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 June 2012 - 07:22 AM

Statute
Long signatures are really annoying.

#20 LongLiveYorke

LongLiveYorke

    Ending the world one proton at a time

  • Members
  • 8,356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manhattan
  • Interests:fizziks, teh maths, Raid-o-head, Rod Reynolds

Posted 29 June 2012 - 09:21 AM

View PostJustDoIt, on 29 June 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Your right, that's kind of scary. Of course taxes was not part of oral arguments and again it not the courts job to rewrite the statue.
You're just not correct. They WERE part of the oral arguments:Page 3:http://www.supremeco...-398-Monday.pdfFirst, Congress directed that the section 5000A penalty shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. Second, Congress provided that penalties are included in taxes for assessment purposes. And, third, the section 5000A penalty bears the key indicia of a tax.And it being a tax WAS in the original law. The penalty to be paid goes to the IRS:http://www.businessw...acare-phases-in2014:—Almost everyone required to be covered by either private or government-run insurance or pay a penalty to the IRSSo, you're quite wrong. Please stop posting wrong things. Thanks.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users