56 replies to this topic

[Balloon guy]

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.

[Dagata]

LongLiveYorke, on 29 June 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

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.

I think what he is trying to say is that the tax argument thing was not a part of the original argument, which was deemed unconstitutional(commerce clause) and as a result the court was forced to use the tax arguement as their case even though the court acknowledges that the purpose of the law is unconstitutional(that is to compel commerce)

[CaneBrain]

Dagata, on 29 June 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

I think what he is trying to say is that the tax argument thing was not a part of the original argument, which was deemed unconstitutional(commerce clause) and as a result the court was forced to use the tax arguement as their case even though the court acknowledges that the purpose of the law is unconstitutional(that is to compel commerce)

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

[Balloon guy]

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.

NOT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS KIDS.And no one is covered, until 2014 anyway, so it will get overturned when you lose your $100

[CaneBrain]

Actually the 26 thing is already in effect.

[Dagata]

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.

Taxes was a secondary fallback argument, completely separate from the Commerce argument, while both arguments were presented. It was supplied as an attempt to uphold the law on a technicality, as the court is required to use any possible interpretation that could be constitutional rather than maintaining the law on what it was actually intended to do. I just finished reading the full report and there is specific language that talks about how they accept that the point of the law isnt to be interpreted as a tax, but because it is the only way to interpret the law without violating the constitution they have to adopt that interpretation. Ill try to post specifically what I was reading from the report.I'm no law expert, and im 100% sure someone can write a 25 page essay on why it is neccessary, but this notion of being able to change your argument after your argument fails just seems a little ridiculous, like someone pleading not guilty, and when the evidence is presented, changing to not guilty by mental defect, I guess the courts have no problem with such a scenario but it just seems a bit too much.This specifically causes are problem with the supreme court, in a case of changing arguements/plea of not guilty to not guilty by mental defect, the prosecution simply has more work to prove their case, in the supreme court however there specifically is the requirement that the court MUST ignore the intentions of congress if their intention is unconstitutional and instead actively search for a way that a(any) law can be interpreted as constitutional, even if the intention of congress is to act in an unconstitutional way. It also creates a precedent that it becomes beneficial for congress to simply use a broad stroke with the commerce clause or other powers, then argue multiple vantage points in hopes that when their original intent is deemed unconstititutional, they can fall back to an interpretation that isnt remotely near their intent.You combine this with the new precendent that congress now has to authority to regulate all actions(inaction and action) of commerce and this becomes a huge power grab for congress, nearly anything can now become a "unique market" that congress needs to take over and regulate or force people to engage in commerce with.

[CaneBrain]

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.

[Dagata]

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.

I specifically said I understand there isnt a limit, I was more commenting on the fact that the concept of being able to change your argument when it doesnt work, has a weakness of throwing everything at the wall to hope something sticks even though the intention of the law is unconstitutional. And again, when we've now created the precedent that other things can now be compelled to purchase it becomes easier to uphold compelling unwanted purchases as you can throw as many interpretations of the law as long as they're remotely releveant to the intention of congress who is intentionally trying to make laws the constitution would not uphold face up.They argued either/or, however had both of them been accepted at constitutional you know they would have cited Commerce Clause, its very apparent that the judges agreed that the design was for this, and the Taxation power argument was a "backup plan"Having said this and reading roberts report I do agree with the supreme court decision, one quote that made the most sense in the report:It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences oftheir political choices.My issue isnt with the actual thought process behind upholding it under taxation, or their reasonings for rejecting the commerce caluse argument, but that simply the winning strategy that becomes more developed from precedent of being able to compel action and then simply throwing as many interpretations as you can(through wording of the bill or arguments made by the lawyers) Even though everyone knows the(any generic) bill is unconstituational at face value.

[CaneBrain]

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.

[JustDoIt]

LongLiveYorke, on 29 June 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

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.

Your correct it was in oral aurguments.Page 16JUSTICE BREYER: Now, here, Congress has nowhere used the word "tax." What it says is penalty. Moreover, this isnot in the Internal Revenue Code "but for purposes of collection."And so why is this a tax? And I know you point to certain sentences that talk about taxes within the Code -MR.LONG: Right.JUSTICE BREYER: -- and this is not attached to a tax. It is attached to a health care requirement.Okay so it's not a tax.

[CaneBrain]

According to Breyer. Judging by your posts, I don't think you want to live in a world where Justice Breyer (the most liberal justice BY FAR) gets to decide what things are and what things are not.

[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.

It is really simple and not that complicated. The job of the court is to rule the law Constitutional or rule the law Not Constitutional. Thats not what happened Thursday. The Statute was rewritten.When the court legislates from the bench bad things happen............like Plessy v. Ferguson.

[JustDoIt]

CaneBrain, on 30 June 2012 - 08:07 AM, said:

According to Breyer. Judging by your posts, I don't think you want to live in a world where Justice Breyer (the most liberal justice BY FAR) gets to decide what things are and what things are not.

LOL, I was just poking fun at the LongLiveYorke who was quoting from oral aurguments........shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes, then he declared it was a tax in the original law. Under Congressional authority to tax, which tax would this alleged tax fall under?

[AmScray]

JustDoIt, on 30 June 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

Under Congressional authority to tax, which tax would this alleged tax fall under?

The one they just passed.

[CaneBrain]

JustDoIt, on 30 June 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

It is really simple and not that complicated. The job of the court is to rule the law Constitutional or rule the law Not Constitutional. Thats not what happened Thursday. The Statute was rewritten.When the court legislates from the bench bad things happen............like Plessy v. Ferguson.

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.

[nutzbuster]

Drinks are on me.If the Government still allows this kind of behavior.Nothing over 16 oz. tho.

[Balloon guy]

Figured it out.They can't deny me for pre-existingSo no insurance, pay the small fine for not having insurance.If I get sick, go get insurance, pay for it month to month until surgery/treatment is over, then dump it and go back to paying small fine.Thanks Obamacare!

[LongLiveYorke]

Balloon guy, on 02 July 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

Figured it out.They can't deny me for pre-existingSo no insurance, pay the small fine for not having insurance.If I get sick, go get insurance, pay for it month to month until surgery/treatment is over, then dump it and go back to paying small fine.Thanks Obamacare!

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

[vbnautilus]

JustDoIt, on 30 June 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

It is really simple and not that complicated.The job of the court is to rule the law Constitutional or rule the law Not Constitutional. Thats not what happened Thursday. The Statute was rewritten.When the court legislates from the bench bad things happen............like Plessy v. Ferguson.

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

[Dagata]

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

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

The individual mandate does not solve the problem, it only delays the inevitable.You cannot charge more for the tax than it is for qualifying covereage, that would be absurd to pay a $2000 tax for coverage that costs $1000.However if the tax is lower than the coverage, combined with the the no pre existing conditions denials, it is optimal strategy to pay the tax, wait until your injured before getting insurance, buy insurance on the way to the hospital and print it out like The Generals Car Insurance. And force the insurance companies to lose all their money.The only way the individual mandate can work is by force, or the tax is more expensive than the insurance, otherwise all the money will goto the government, and all the money being spent will be by the insurance companies.The insurance companies will either have to get the money from the government that they collected via taxes, or go under. Making the goverment the one who runs the health insurance.The slippery slope saysAt that point in becomes in the best interest of the government finanically for the citizens to be physically fit, eating healthly, and making better decisions, taxes taxes taxes?