56 replies to this topic

[JustDoIt]

Balloon guy, on 29 June 2012 - 12:08 PM, said:

I am so looking forward to when Obama care is fully implemented and it sucks and everyone tries to figure out why they were so excited about it.And for 22 year olds being told they must buy full medical insurance or be fined taxed as a punishment.Maybe I'm just getting old, but I'm fine with letting all come crashing down just so I can laugh at the people who are causing the disaster.

Their is nothing funny about this mess. It will hurt a lot of innocent people including future citizens not born yet.

[JustDoIt]

CaneBrain, on 29 June 2012 - 05:09 PM, said:

That's a long rambling post that pretends there is a limit on how many arguments you can make to the Supreme Court. There's not. They made both arguments. One worked on 4 people, the other worked on Roberts. They didn't "change" their argument. They argued that it should be constitutional under the Commerce Clause OR the Taxation power. Roberts didn't invent the tax argument nor did the Solicitor General invent the new argument after the old one failed. As an aside, intent, as you are describing it, is irrelevant here. Obama is still claiming it's not a tax. Personally, I found Roberts opinion to be very persuasive.Have a seance and complain to the Founding Fathers for leaving such a gaping loophole in Congress' taxation power.

If you read the well written dessent you will realize that the gaping loophole was not their until John Roberts created it.

[JustDoIt]

CaneBrain, on 30 June 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

I will agree that the Commerce Clause was their "original" argument but it's not like they made 15 arguments. They made two and both arguments were successful to a degree. If you just threw every argument at the wall, I think that would backfire against you.I still have not seen anyone make a good argument that Roberts was wrong.

Again I will go with the well written dissent.Page 150SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissentingAnd the nail in the coffin is that the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, ratherthan where a tax would be found—in Title IX, containing the Act’s “Revenue Provisions.” In sum, “the terms of [the] actrende[r] it unavoidable,” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448 (1830), that Congress imposed a regulatory penalty, not atax.For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but torewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubl- ing.

[JustDoIt]

AmScray, on 30 June 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

The one they just passed.

Another problem with this whole thing was this issue was not addressed, except for John Roberts rambling which really did not solve the problem.http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdfPage 4“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Art. I, §9, cl. 4. A tax on going without health insurance is not like acapitation or other direct tax under this Court’s precedents. It therefore need not be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion toits population.

[JustDoIt]

CaneBrain, on 30 June 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

You're still just saying nonsense. They did not re-write anything. They (roberts) ruled the penalty operates as a tax which is an argument that was made by the Solicitor General during oral argument.It's really simple and not that complicated. Making your inability to grasp it combined with your attempt to be condescending very, very amusing.

I have always like you, still do. I really don't want to be condescending, but you are wrong.I will let Justice Ginsburg make my argument.http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdfPage 120Opinion of GINSBURG, J.THE CHIEF JUSTICE nevertheless would rewrite §1304to countenance only the “right to alter somewhat,” or “amend, but not toomuch.” Congress, however, did not so qualify §1304.It is fully understood that Congress meant that the Mandate was to be a Penalty instead of a Tax. The original bill was rejected when the Mandate was to be a Tax.Page 150SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissentingAnd the nail in the coffin is that the mandate and penalty are located in Title I of the Act, its operative core, ratherthan where a tax would be found—in Title IX, containing the Act’s “Revenue Provisions.” In sum, “the terms of [the] actrende[r] it unavoidable,” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448 (1830), that Congress imposed a regulatory penalty, not atax.For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but torewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubl- ing.Page 151We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislationthat imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. See Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. R. 3962, 111thCong., 1st Sess., §501 (2009); America’s Healthy FutureAct of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §1301. Imposing a taxthrough judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch ofgovernmentleast accountable to the citizenry.I don't know if you have read the dessent but it is well written and powerful. I challenge every one to read this document. You will find out that the Conservitive Judges are not Monsters. You will also understand John Roberts rambling opions has done great damage. Justice Ginsburg even called him out.

[JustDoIt]

vbnautilus, on 03 July 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Where can we find this new, rewritten version of the statute?

The question should be was this law upheld and applied as written by Congress.http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdfPage 4SyllabusCHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandatemay be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause.page 5The Medicaid expansion thus violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaidfunding if they decline to comply with the expansion. Pp. 51–55.© The constitutional violation is fully remedied by precluding the Secretary from applying §1396c to withdraw existingMedicaidfunds for failure to comply with the requirements set out in the expansion. See §1303. The other provisions of theAffordable Care Act are not affected.That is the new text.Again, I quote Justice Ginberg.Page 120Opinion of GINSBURG, J.THE CHIEF JUSTICE nevertheless would rewrite §1304to countenance only the “right to alter somewhat,” or “amend, but not toomuch.” Congress, however, did not so qualify §1304.

[Balloon guy]

LongLiveYorke, on 03 July 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

Hey guys, look, BG is starting to realize why an individual mandate was necessary.

Silly liberal, believing that the there was logic behind the individual mandateThe most it will be is $2,000 a year, that is considerably less than I pay now for insurance that has a $5,000 deductible per year.And if I have a bad year financially, the amount will be much less.So there is no way I will carry insurance since I will pay for any healthcare below $5,000 anyway, and there is no reason to carry insurance at all.And insurance companies, after not getting the money from healthy people to offset their pay outs, will have to raise rates considerably, which of course will mean the fine tax will always be lower than buying the insurance.I'm sure the insurance companies will put up with this for at least 2 years before they just bail completely from the US market, or demand government aid to make up the short falls created by 'free healthcare'It will be great when tax dollars are used to ensure insurance companies make a healthy profit every year so that I can avoid being responsible for my own health.

[colonel Feathers]

CaneBrain, on 29 June 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

This is also incorrect. They made both arguments during oral argument.BG, kids are covered until 26 now. One of the more popular provisions.

iM sure there are universally popular parts to the communist manifesto. too. The fact of the matter is, this poorly constructed bill will be an overwhelming burden to small business.I just thank God, Im in a position to never have to look for a job again.

[AmScray]

Balloon guy, on 05 July 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

It will be great when tax dollars are used to ensure insurance companies make a healthy profit every year so that I can avoid being responsible for my own health.

There's a part in a certain video game where a man says SKATE OR DIE!!! and a hive of bees comes after your skater until he's either too slow and they get him, or he can gain admission to a skate ramp.When this bill came up, it was SKATE OR DIE for the insurance companies, who up to that point had been skating around doing tricks and enjoying a simple, easy and immensely profitable life, but suddenly had to start calling in every legislative favor they'd ever paid for over the years to ensure that this bill didn't create a system that totally destroyed their very existence.They were going to take it up the ass no matter what- it was just a matter between choosing between a banana or an unlubricated pineapple.Unfortunately, the ideal situation here wasn't just shoving it up their asses (neither banana nor pineapple), but shooting them between the eyes, putting them totally out of business and going to national health care.People are incredibly ****ing stupid and naive, though, so you can keep them picking cotton, believing they're being 'treated well', if you just give them ham on Christmas and keep the whippings to a minimum.

[Dagata]

I wish there was a more modern version of referencing slavery and racism, can we change from cotton to "Farm my World of Warcraft gold, chink!" cotton picking just isnt doing it for me anymore.Ill try to come up with others.

[Balloon guy]

AmScray, on 07 July 2012 - 03:42 PM, said:

There's a part in the video game 720 where a man says SKATE OR DIE!!! and a hive of bees comes after your skater until he's either too slow and they get him, or he can gain admission to a skate ramp.When this bill came up, it was SKATE OR DIE for the insurance companies, who up to that point had been skating around doing tricks and enjoying a simple, easy and immensely profitable life, but suddenly had to start calling in every legislative favor they'd ever paid for over the years to ensure that this bill didn't create a system that totally destroyed their very existence.They were going to take it up the ass no matter what- it was just a matter between choosing between a banana or an unlubricated pineapple.Unfortunately, the ideal situation here wasn't just shoving it up their asses (neither banana nor pineapple), but shooting them between the eyes, putting them totally out of business and going to national health care.People are incredibly ****ing stupid and naive, though, so you can keep them picking cotton, believing they're being 'treated well', if you just give them ham on Christmas and keep the whippings to a minimum.

Skate or Die...that takes me back man.

[akoff]

i was talking to a friend of mine last week. they have already run the numbers, he tells me he plans to drop his company health insurance when the this whole things moves forward. he claims he can save 340k per year on health benefits alone...that is the spread between the cost of insurance and the "tax" rate. i have a meeting set up for the end of July with our advisors to research options.it is all over but the crying(for the poor people)

[AmScray]

Dagata, on 07 July 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

I wish there was a more modern version of referencing slavery and racism, can we change from cotton to "Farm my World of Warcraft gold, chink!" cotton picking just isnt doing it for me anymore.Ill try to come up with others.

I wasn't referencing "slavery and racism".I was metaphorically referencing "slavery"; the abstract idea of how an 'overseer' might manage productivity among a controlled population. The fact it once applied to blacks isn't the point... and while we're on that, why did we enslave blacks anyway? We had a world of different races to enslave yet we chose THEM? Yes, I understand it was because we acknowledged their status on the lower rungs of the evolutionary ladder (IIRC, there were still instances of Australians hunting Aboroginals for sport into the 1880's) thus is was "OK" with our magic sky wizard to enslave blacks, but seriously, couldn't we have enslaved Asians instead? At least they would've bee useful in white collar professions.Imagine how awesome it would be to own your own accountant, classical pianist or physician!They would be trivially easy to control since they're the most superstitious people on earth (we could simply tell them that every job was "in service to their ancestors...:"). Their women are more attractive and if you knock one up, they're basically white again in two generations (whereas it usually takes 4-6 for black genes to wash out) Huge mistake.

[DJ Vu]

AmScray, on 09 July 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

Imagine how awesome it would be to own your own accountant!

The warden at Shawshank could highlight some possible downsides to that.

[brvheart]

http://dailycaller.c...over-obamacare/

[CaneBrain]

Sounds like we finally have a profession that will have job openings....my internist loves Obamacare so he must be the 17%. Maybe it's good for gp guys.

[BigDMcGee]

AmScray, on 09 July 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

but seriously, couldn't we have enslaved Asians instead?

Obviously you've never ridden a railroad. But, if you'd like to see some asian slaves, just head over to your local massage parlor and ask for a happy ending.