Healthcare decision rolling out now

xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
So far, seems the mandate is upheld as well as the rest of the law is upheld, but not in the way some lefties were hoping

During the HC debate, Obama/Pelosi kept saying the mandate was under the Commerce clause; but then in court suddenly argued it was a tax. The Supreme Court decided that the mandate was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause, but legal as a tax - so the indiv mandate is upheld as a tax, the reasoning being that Congress can tax people as it pleases, including taxing people who don't buy insurance, but Congress cannot compell people to buy insurance as an extension of their power. You'll recall that the Dems kept insisting all along that no one's taxes were going to be raised

For those interested in the legal aspects, this is actually rather heartening news; it means a rollback of Federal power, and a retreat from Wickard v. Filburn.

I won't go into the rest, it's a hodgpodge of finely parsed legal distinctions that would bore most people, but I suppose it's gonna be seen as a win for Obama. The USSC upheld the rest of the law, but limited it in select ways that will have large effects, such as saying the feds cannot terminate medicaid funds to the States if they aren't spent as the feds dictate

Oddly enough, John Roberts was the swing vote that upheld the individual mandate, 5-4 decision. I wonder how the lefties will claim this is an illegitimate and partisan court now? I'm sure they'll find a way

«1

Comments

  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,568 ✭✭✭
    The ramblings of a bitter man. One good decision has no impact on other bad decisions......but on this one, they got it right.
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    About the medicaid portions; Obama admin argued that they had the power to force States to accept increased medicaid funds, then force the States to spend it as the Feds dictate. USSC ruled that Feds can't force States to accept Obamacare medicaid funds, while they can still accept regular medicaid funds - if States accept Obamacare funds, then Feds can force them to spend it as the Feds dictate, but if States don't accept it, then they can spend their medicaid funds as they please
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Vulchor:
    The ramblings of a bitter man. One good decision has no impact on other bad decisions......but on this one, they got it right.
    I'm an attorney, Vulchor - I pay attention to the reasoning the Court uses, not just the politicking going on around it. One reason it drives me into a fury when I hear some whelp comparing Citizens United to Dred Scott, because I understand the legal underpinnings of the two cases.

    It's disheartening that the indiv mandate was upheld, but I can understand the reasoning; it's a big victory for Obama, but not for the reasons he was hoping for - Obamacare is constitutional as a tax; States can opt out of Obamacare funding for medicaid. There are consequences that you're not seeing.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,568 ✭✭✭
    Im not an attorney, but I know enough about law...and common sense....that Citizens United was a crap decision and a political one------so when the Court itself is "politicking" as you say, how are we to have faith in the system?
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Vulchor:
    Im not an attorney, but I know enough about law...and common sense....that Citizens United was a crap decision and a political one------so when the Court itself is "politicking" as you say, how are we to have faith in the system?
    No, you don't know **** about law - every reason you, Amos and Krieger have given are political reasons, devoid of any legal understanding.

    If you wanna fist pump over the victory in Obamacare, go ahead and do it, but don't try to bullsh1t me that you understand jack about the legal aspects; stick to the political gloating, don't tread into things you don't know about.

    On another note, I think this may well turn into a Pyrrhic victory for Obama

  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 3,899 ✭✭✭✭✭
    It makes more sense as a tax. The commerce clause arguement was weak. It would seem that the government does after all have the obligation to create an environment for the common good, which should appeal to the conservative mind, assuming the conservation of constitutional principles is the desired object.

    What I'm afraid will not be addressed are the very real issues of how much of the taxed money is overspent, for a wide variety of reasons sure to inflame all sides in some fashion. We need a health care system. What we have is a diagnose/intervene system that assumes the answer is always intervene, even when that is no longer a viable or realistic option.
    The other problem is a sense of entitlement that assumes that someone else should pay for every last dime of ones "healthcare", right down to aspirin for aches and pains, tampons, and contraceptives. If you have a hard time believing that any significant portion of our public thinks this way, spend some time in ER triage. It's frightening!

    As with most hotly contested issues, there are points to be made on both sides. If the two (or more) sides are unable to discuss and consider the others points of view, and the related side issues that may come up, then the public will continue to pay far more than their health care really costs. Here's hoping the new era doesn't simply become business as usual.

    The longer he remained on this earth, the more he was sure that mankind had no clue about God or heaven.  Not when they used Him as an excuse to kill, to punish, to discriminate.
                                                                                      -Amy Harmon  From Sand and Ash 

    Full disclosure, I hadn't heard of either, but I really liked the quote.  Resonates with me.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,568 ✭✭✭
    Wow----the continuing attack on my person continues-----classy my man, classy. I guess since I dont know **** as you say, I will keep my opinions to myself. Your well known right wing sentiments Im sure have no impact on your feelings about any decisions as you as able to be totally unbiased while the rest of us cannot, correct? Thanks again for the attacks man. Im out
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Vulchor:
    Wow----the continuing attack on my person continues-----classy my man, classy. I guess since I dont know **** as you say, I will keep my opinions to myself. Your well known right wing sentiments Im sure have no impact on your feelings about any decisions as you as able to be totally unbiased while the rest of us cannot, correct? Thanks again for the attacks man. Im out
    Stay out of my profession; you don't know jack about law, and I'm pissed that you're making assumptions you do.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,568 ✭✭✭
    You practice constitutional law? Also, does this also mean you will not speak of things you are not an "expert" in? IE---Politics?------Your goading me into this here and I shoudl take the high road and stop btw.
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Amos Umwhat:
    It makes more sense as a tax. The commerce clause arguement was weak. It would seem that the government does after all have the obligation to create an environment for the common good, which should appeal to the conservative mind, assuming the conservation of constitutional principles is the desired object.

    What I'm afraid will not be addressed are the very real issues of how much of the taxed money is overspent, for a wide variety of reasons sure to inflame all sides in some fashion. We need a health care system. What we have is a diagnose/intervene system that assumes the answer is always intervene, even when that is no longer a viable or realistic option.
    The other problem is a sense of entitlement that assumes that someone else should pay for every last dime of ones "healthcare", right down to aspirin for aches and pains, tampons, and contraceptives. If you have a hard time believing that any significant portion of our public thinks this way, spend some time in ER triage. It's frightening!

    As with most hotly contested issues, there are points to be made on both sides. If the two (or more) sides are unable to discuss and consider the others points of view, and the related side issues that may come up, then the public will continue to pay far more than their health care really costs. Here's hoping the new era doesn't simply become business as usual.
    +1
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Vulchor:
    You practice constitutional law? Also, does this also mean you will not speak of things you are not an "expert" in? IE---Politics?------Your goading me into this here and I shoudl take the high road and stop btw.
    No, but there are consequences you're not seeing, and I'm pissed that you talk down to me like you think you do.

    The Commerce clause hit it's peak in the last century under Wickard v Filburn; since then, the Court has been winding it down, reading more and more limits into it, returning it closer to its original form. It's a relief to me that they found it unconstitutional under the Commerce clause - it means the Court is likely to continue winding down the excesses.

    I don't have a problem with the individual mandate as a tax - I really don't, it's perfectly fine with me. Congress can tax as much as it wants and they can tax whatever they want, but their powers under the Commerce clause are limited to commerce, not compelling individuals to enter a market by decree - that possibility truly frightened me as an American; it would have rendered the Constitution almost useless.

    The individual mandate is well within Congress' power to tax, and now that the Court has said it is a tax, we can at least have an honest debate about it, instead of all this ball-and-cup with mandate vs tax crap.



    Secondly, with regard to medicaid, the USSC allowed States to opt out of the medicaid portions of Obamacare; you're forgetting that 26 States sued - if the States can opt out, then they don't need to cover the uninsured that Obamacare mandates, which means at least half the States will probably do so. The politics and future of Obamacare is just beginning; this is gonna be fought in every Statehouse in the nation.

    EDIT - The bill as a whole was only upheld due to a small form of judicial activism - the bill never once mentions "tax" in regards to the individual mandate - for the court to uphold the mandate as a tax means they're essentially re-writing a portion of the bill, reclassifying the mandate in a way Congress didn't intend. If it hadn't been for this, the bill would have been struck down in its entirety due to a lack of a severability clause.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,568 ✭✭✭
    So because you disagree it's judicial activism-----but its right and just in the citizens united decision. You also got mad as I was accused of attacking or pretending to know your profession-----but now youre espousing to be a better judge of constitutional law than our Supreme Court----------am Im the one who "talks down" to people?
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Hmm, I suppose I was wrong that it's judicial activism; the Obama lawyers did ask the USSC to interpret it as a tax when they were making their arguments, so I stand corrected on that point. My bad.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,568 ✭✭✭
    Not to worry....Im over the excitement of it now. Back to just working, eating, sh!tting, and sleeping----I kinda prefer it that way anyway.
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,568 ✭✭✭
    Lollll...I love the Republican spin. For the last several months, this was unconstitutional and Obama was over stepping. Now, Mr. Rubio and the other talking heads line is "the Supreme Court decides what is and is not constitutional, not what is good or bad policy". I love politics, both sides, when their desires as squashed and they try to make it sound like a good thing.
  • beatnicbeatnic Posts: 4,133
    xmacro:
    Hmm, I suppose I was wrong that it's judicial activism; the Obama lawyers did ask the USSC to interpret it as a tax when they were making their arguments, so I stand corrected on that point. My bad.
    Yes, and big O also said (its' on tape) that this was not a tax and the ADA would not raise taxes. Now we are looking at the largest tax increase in history.
    Its hard to get any work done with all these juicy sound bites rolling in, Vulch. LOL.

  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Vulchor:
    Lollll...I love the Republican spin. For the last several months, this was unconstitutional and Obama was over stepping. Now, Mr. Rubio and the other talking heads line is "the Supreme Court decides what is and is not constitutional, not what is good or bad policy". I love politics, both sides, when their desires as squashed and they try to make it sound like a good thing.
    How is that a bad thing? Even though the Court came down different than what they wanted, they respect the decision and they respect the instiution. Contrast that to Obama, who's spent the past few months laying the groundwork to attack the Court if they dared to cross him and strike down the law. Only third world dictators attack and delagitimze co-equal branches that disagree with them.

    And now that I read the decision a bit and the dissents, it seems I was initially correct - the Justices in dissent think it's judicial activism for the Court to find the mandate is a tax when the actual bill never mentions "tax" at all.
  • StreaterStreater Posts: 293
    xmacro:
    Vulchor:
    You practice constitutional law? Also, does this also mean you will not speak of things you are not an "expert" in? IE---Politics?------Your goading me into this here and I shoudl take the high road and stop btw.
    No, but there are consequences you're not seeing, and I'm pissed that you talk down to me like you think you do.

    The Commerce clause hit it's peak in the last century under Wickard v Filburn; since then, the Court has been winding it down, reading more and more limits into it, returning it closer to its original form. It's a relief to me that they found it unconstitutional under the Commerce clause - it means the Court is likely to continue winding down the excesses.

    I don't have a problem with the individual mandate as a tax - I really don't, it's perfectly fine with me. Congress can tax as much as it wants and they can tax whatever they want, but their powers under the Commerce clause are limited to commerce, not compelling individuals to enter a market by decree - that possibility truly frightened me as an American; it would have rendered the Constitution almost useless.

    The individual mandate is well within Congress' power to tax, and now that the Court has said it is a tax, we can at least have an honest debate about it, instead of all this ball-and-cup with mandate vs tax crap.



    Secondly, with regard to medicaid, the USSC allowed States to opt out of the medicaid portions of Obamacare; you're forgetting that 26 States sued - if the States can opt out, then they don't need to cover the uninsured that Obamacare mandates, which means at least half the States will probably do so. The politics and future of Obamacare is just beginning; this is gonna be fought in every Statehouse in the nation.

    EDIT - The bill as a whole was only upheld due to a small form of judicial activism - the bill never once mentions "tax" in regards to the individual mandate - for the court to uphold the mandate as a tax means they're essentially re-writing a portion of the bill, reclassifying the mandate in a way Congress didn't intend. If it hadn't been for this, the bill would have been struck down in its entirety due to a lack of a severability clause.
    I wish I lived in Florida so I could come mow your lawn or fix your computer. Thank you for dumbing that down to my understanding of the law and politics.
  • y2pascoey2pascoe Posts: 1,727 ✭✭
    Healthcare for some...little American flags for others!
  • jj20030jj20030 galveston islandPosts: 5,544 ✭✭✭
  • y2pascoey2pascoe Posts: 1,727 ✭✭
    Everytime I see SCOTUS, I think of balls.
  • MTuccelliMTuccelli Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭
    Just a convenient way to raise taxes on the middle class. Once again we end up paying for everything.

  • scarlinscarlin Posts: 1,592
    I wouldn't be surprised in the long run that if this bill is not abolished it will easily move the US economy into the lower 10 range which means China, Japan, Germany, Brazil, UK, Russia, India, and Canada will probably be ahead of the US in 20 years. In case you were wondering the bill will add 1.73T USD to the US debt immediately upon being put into effect and I believe 200M a year to upkeep it every year with even higher taxes. Shoulda payed more attention when I was learning this stuff..
  • Amos_UmwhatAmos_Umwhat West TNPosts: 3,899 ✭✭✭✭✭
    scarlin:
    I wouldn't be surprised in the long run that if this bill is not abolished it will easily move the US economy into the lower 10 range which means China, Japan, Germany, Brazil, UK, Russia, India, and Canada will probably be ahead of the US in 20 years. In case you were wondering the bill will add 1.73T USD to the US debt immediately upon being put into effect and I believe 200M a year to upkeep it every year with even higher taxes. Shoulda payed more attention when I was learning this stuff..
    You do realize that at least most, if not all of the countries you think will be ahead of us, already have what we're trying to get. What they DON'T have, is a bill for 48% of all the military spending on the planet. WE do.

    The longer he remained on this earth, the more he was sure that mankind had no clue about God or heaven.  Not when they used Him as an excuse to kill, to punish, to discriminate.
                                                                                      -Amy Harmon  From Sand and Ash 

    Full disclosure, I hadn't heard of either, but I really liked the quote.  Resonates with me.
  • KriegKrieg Posts: 5,083 ✭✭✭
    xmacro:
    Vulchor:
    Wow----the continuing attack on my person continues-----classy my man, classy. I guess since I dont know **** as you say, I will keep my opinions to myself. Your well known right wing sentiments Im sure have no impact on your feelings about any decisions as you as able to be totally unbiased while the rest of us cannot, correct? Thanks again for the attacks man. Im out
    Stay out of my profession; you don't know jack about law, and I'm pissed that you're making assumptions you do.
    LOL...nice to see not much has changed, huh Mac? lol
  • KriegKrieg Posts: 5,083 ✭✭✭
    xmacro:
    Vulchor:
    Wow----the continuing attack on my person continues-----classy my man, classy. I guess since I dont know **** as you say, I will keep my opinions to myself. Your well known right wing sentiments Im sure have no impact on your feelings about any decisions as you as able to be totally unbiased while the rest of us cannot, correct? Thanks again for the attacks man. Im out
    Stay out of my profession; you don't know jack about law, and I'm pissed that you're making assumptions you do.
    LOL...haven't been around in awhile but nice to see not much has changed, lol
  • xmacroxmacro Posts: 3,402
    Krieg:
    xmacro:
    Vulchor:
    Wow----the continuing attack on my person continues-----classy my man, classy. I guess since I dont know **** as you say, I will keep my opinions to myself. Your well known right wing sentiments Im sure have no impact on your feelings about any decisions as you as able to be totally unbiased while the rest of us cannot, correct? Thanks again for the attacks man. Im out
    Stay out of my profession; you don't know jack about law, and I'm pissed that you're making assumptions you do.
    LOL...haven't been around in awhile but nice to see not much has changed, lol
    The more things change, the more they stay the same
  • VulchorVulchor FloridaPosts: 4,568 ✭✭✭
    Nice to see you too Krieg.

    AND yes Amos, the bill for our military is whats bankrupting us, plain and simple. We forget that thought and want to put more into military and if you speak against it people portray you as wanting to take money out of soldiers pockets.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    xmacro:
    Vulchor:
    Im not an attorney, but I know enough about law...and common sense....that Citizens United was a crap decision and a political one------so when the Court itself is "politicking" as you say, how are we to have faith in the system?
    No, you don't know **** about law - every reason you, Amos and Krieger have given are political reasons, devoid of any legal understanding.

    If you wanna fist pump over the victory in Obamacare, go ahead and do it, but don't try to bullsh1t me that you understand jack about the legal aspects; stick to the political gloating, don't tread into things you don't know about.

    On another note, I think this may well turn into a Pyrrhic victory for Obama

    The commerce clause is their ability to tax. Thus it was a tax.
  • phobicsquirrelphobicsquirrel Posts: 7,349
    Streater:
    xmacro:
    Vulchor:
    You practice constitutional law? Also, does this also mean you will not speak of things you are not an "expert" in? IE---Politics?------Your goading me into this here and I shoudl take the high road and stop btw.
    No, but there are consequences you're not seeing, and I'm pissed that you talk down to me like you think you do.

    The Commerce clause hit it's peak in the last century under Wickard v Filburn; since then, the Court has been winding it down, reading more and more limits into it, returning it closer to its original form. It's a relief to me that they found it unconstitutional under the Commerce clause - it means the Court is likely to continue winding down the excesses.

    I don't have a problem with the individual mandate as a tax - I really don't, it's perfectly fine with me. Congress can tax as much as it wants and they can tax whatever they want, but their powers under the Commerce clause are limited to commerce, not compelling individuals to enter a market by decree - that possibility truly frightened me as an American; it would have rendered the Constitution almost useless.

    The individual mandate is well within Congress' power to tax, and now that the Court has said it is a tax, we can at least have an honest debate about it, instead of all this ball-and-cup with mandate vs tax crap.



    Secondly, with regard to medicaid, the USSC allowed States to opt out of the medicaid portions of Obamacare; you're forgetting that 26 States sued - if the States can opt out, then they don't need to cover the uninsured that Obamacare mandates, which means at least half the States will probably do so. The politics and future of Obamacare is just beginning; this is gonna be fought in every Statehouse in the nation.

    EDIT - The bill as a whole was only upheld due to a small form of judicial activism - the bill never once mentions "tax" in regards to the individual mandate - for the court to uphold the mandate as a tax means they're essentially re-writing a portion of the bill, reclassifying the mandate in a way Congress didn't intend. If it hadn't been for this, the bill would have been struck down in its entirety due to a lack of a severability clause.
    I wish I lived in Florida so I could come mow your lawn or fix your computer. Thank you for dumbing that down to my understanding of the law and politics.
    lol...

    btw the mandate was a GOP idea that the dems adopted since they didn't have the balls to push/open up medicare to all citizens. And even though it was a GOP idea they turned it around on the dems and made it into a big deal.

    And macro, what kind of attorney are you? You keep toeing the GOP line then you may be out of a job.
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.