Obamacare easily survives supreme court

[Jim in CT]

Anyone here know what goes good with crow? I'm eating a huge pile of it today.

I'm shocked. I didn't hear a single person. not even on MSNBC, expect that even the individual mandate would pass.

Shows you how much I know, which is not much.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Shows you how little anyone knows. Most of the pundits on both sides seemed to think it was going down, at least the indiv. mandate.

This was a difficult thing to predict... While it came out of a very liberal presidency, many of the ideas originated in right-leaning think tanks...

with crow I recommend a nice lowlands single malt....

[Jim in CT]

I actually love one of the stated goals of Obamacare, which is to get more money into the system so that sick people don't go bankrupt because of health issues they did not cause.

If someone is born sick, or gets sick through no fault of their own, I don't see why they should be expected to pay one more cent for their healthcare than a normally healthy person, for this reason...they had no control over getting sick, they didn't "choose" to get sick, so why should they be punished? As a healthy person, if I have to pay more than my own fair share to help a kid with lukemia, I have no quarrel with that. As an aside, I think that if someone is unhealthy because they smoke, or because they sleep around, or because they choose to eat crappy food and not exercise, than every single cent o fthe cost of their care should be born by them. If someone chooses to smoke and gets emphezema, why should I have to sacrifice to pay for their care?

And it makes sense to me that the individual mandate levels the playing field. Healthy people are healthy because of pure luck. They don't deserve to prosper because of that luck, just as someone who unfortunately gets sick doesn't deserve to suffer financially.

So if the individual mandate is used to "level the playing field" so to speak, I think it passes my ethical litmus test. I'm just not sure about the constitutionality.

If Obama wins re-election (and I suspect it will come down to Ohio, where he seems to be polling well), Obamacare will stay. If Romney wins and the GOP controls Congress, the first thing Romney will do is repeal it.

How does this shake out politically? People who don't like Obamacare (from what I've seen, every poll suggests that most folks don't like Obamacare) will be more fired up about getting Romney in there. But Obama avoids looking like an idiot, which is what he would have looked like if the one thing he did when his party could do whatever they wanted, got deemed illegal.

[striperman36]

the mandate did not pass the bar as a part of the interstate commerce act, but as a form of taxation.

I was completely shocked to have Roberts with the majority
Interested to hear the collective spin from either side

[likwid]

Examples of people against Obamacare:

People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare

[Jim in CT]

One interesting aspect of all this...Obama went on, and on, and on, explaining why the individual mandate was not a tax increase, but rather an example of regulating commerce.

The majority opinion specifically said that the feds do not have the constitutional autority to regulate commerce in this way, but they do have the authority to tax this way, and they view this as a tax. The majority opinion specifically called it a tax, which Obama bent over backwards to say it was not.

Overall, this is a significant victory for Obama, but I don't see how anyone can say he doesn't look buffoonish in this respect.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The majority opinion specifically called it a tax, which Obama bent over backwards to say it was not.

Like Pelosie said, something like You'll know what's in it after it's passed.
Now that it's passed and ruled on, sure enough we find out one thing for sure,
it's another tax.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Overall, this is a significant victory for Obama, but I don't see how anyone can say he doesn't look buffoonish in this respect.

The SCOTUS said it was a tax in their interpretation.
Obama did not, how does this make him look buffoonish?

Nice regurgitation of the primary talking point on basically every news network today.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

The SCOTUS said it was a tax in their interpretation.
Obama did not, how does this make him look buffoonish?

.

Obama sold this bill as something other than a tax hike. Obama got infuriated at anyone who said it was a tax hike. Then the liberal justices, plus Roberts, say that it's obviously a tax hike.

Obama threw a temper tantrum everytime someone called it a tax hike. Some impatrtial, intelligent folks called it a tax hike.

Shows that Obama may not fully grasp what a "tax hike" is, which in my opinion makes him a buffoon. Disagree if you wish...

[scottw]

I'm curious, I've not had time to read much but from what I have read and from what we were told which was that the individual mandate was the funding mechanism for Obamacare and that if it were struck down, the other parts, even if upheld, could not survive without the funding mechanism....

anyway...I did read that while the mandate was upheld, individual states retain the right to opt out of the individual mandate clause, if this is the case, are the states that choose not to opt out going to bear all of the burden of funding this monstrosity?

if so, this is pretty funny...except that I live in the bluest of blue states

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Obama sold this bill as something other than a tax hike. Obama got infuriated at anyone who said it was a tax hike. Then the liberal justices, plus Roberts, say that it's obviously a tax hike.

Obama threw a temper tantrum everytime someone called it a tax hike. Some impatrtial, intelligent folks called it a tax hike.

Shows that Obama may not fully grasp what a "tax hike" is, which in my opinion makes him a buffoon. Disagree if you wish...

Obama was selling it by what it provided, the justices ruled on it based on how it is funded.

Only a buffoon couldn't understand that.

[scottw]

G. Will and the Kraut both have interesting articles on the why's and what for's


Chief Justice Roberts Provides Swing Vote To Uphold Health Care Law CBS DC

The justices rejected two of the administration’s three arguments in support of the insurance requirement. But the court said the mandate can be construed as a tax. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” Roberts said.

Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax - ABC News

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…

OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

..................

my favorite part is where he says "What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore" Obama


really????? can we apply this to the rest of your programs and rapidly expanding welfare state....please????

at some point you will have a healthcare deduction on your pay stub right along with Social Security, Medicare and all the rest and whatever else they dream up...it's already in place, just need to send the money to a different address

[CTSurfrat]

So now the government can tax you for doing nothing. If I don't buy health insurance, I have to pay a tax! CNS new has a great analysis of Robert's ruling. At one point he says it is not a tax, and the later in his ruling he says it is....you can't make it up.

Chief Justice Roberts: It's Not A Tax, It Is A Tax; It's Law, But It's Not 'Unlawful' to Break It | CNSNews.com

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by CTSurfrat

So now the government can tax you for doing nothing. If I don't buy health insurance, I have to pay a tax! CNS new has a great analysis of Robert's ruling. At one point he says it is not a tax, and the later in his ruling he says it is....you can't make it up.

Chief Justice Roberts: It's Not A Tax, It Is A Tax; It's Law, But It's Not 'Unlawful' to Break It | CNSNews.com

Not only does he contradict himself, but his general observation that the Congress has the power to tax does not point to its specifec constitutional powers of taxation: the income tax, excise tax, or capitation. His phantom power to tax inactivity doesn't fall under any of the three categories. It sets a precedent and opens the door for the Federal Government to have unlimited powers of taxation. Which basically gives it back the unlimited power that was taken away by denying the government its commerce clause power to regulate inactivity. Very strange ruling indeed. But this has been the pattern by which the Federal Government has grown beyond the limits imposed by the Consitution and is becoming the very leviathan the Founders and their Constitution wished to prevent.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Obama was selling it by what it provided, the justices ruled on it based on how it is funded.

Only a buffoon couldn't understand that.

Obama said the way it's funded is not a tax hike. He sold the bill as something other than what it is. Since you chose to get personal here, allow me to retort. Only a brainwashed, unthinking Kool Aid drinker would fail to admit that.

When the federal government confiscates more money from its citizenry than it did previously, that's the textbook definition of a tax increase. Obama denied that to make the bill appear less objectionable. Is that the "change" we were promised? Only a buffoon would say "yes". Welcome to buffoonery.

Obama said it's not a tax hike. That means one of two things. Either he is a liar, or he doesn't know what a tax hike is. Those are the only two choices, there simply isn't a third choice. Only an ideologically-blinded buffoon would fail to see that. Try making that wrong.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Obama said it's not a tax hike. That means one of two things. Either he is a liar, or he doesn't know what a tax hike is.

No, it actually means one of three things, he's a liar, he doesn't know what a tax hike is, or he's a politician who's fleeced you.

But only a buffoon would be fleeced right?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by likwid

No, it actually means one of three things, he's a liar, he doesn't know what a tax hike is, or he's a politician who's fleeced you.

But only a buffoon would be fleeced right?

Unless you're in on the take, you've been fleeced too. So you're either a buffoon or a crook.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Unless you're in on the take, you've been fleeced too. So you're either a buffoon or a crook.

It doesn't take either to have common sense.
And having actually done some reading.

Technically speaking the IRS collects more than just taxes, but, semantics, etc.

Calling it a tax just makes it constitutionally sound.

I'm gonna guess nobody realized that the "penalty" aka "tax" was collected by the IRS did they?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by likwid

It doesn't take either to have common sense.
And having actually done some reading.

Technically speaking the IRS collects more than just taxes, but, semantics, etc.

Calling it a tax just makes it constitutionally sound.

I'm gonna guess nobody realized that the "penalty" aka "tax" was collected by the IRS did they?

On what basis is it constitutionally sound? Are you saying the Constitution places no limits on the fedgov to tax. It lists three types of taxes that are allowed. Taxing inactivity is not one of the those types. And, obviously, the Constitution, ORIGINALLY, limited the governments power to tax. That's why the progressives fought so hard for the sixteenth amendment and created the income tax. Inactivity is not income. Taxing inactivity is not an excise tax and the capitation was a direct tax levied proportionally on the States. Where does taxing individual inactivity fit in the three types of taxes constitutioinally allowed? It doesn't, and Roberts knew it. But his decision now erases the taxing limitations in the Constitution and gives the government unlimited power through its now undefined general power of taxation. This is classic legislation from the bench. Nor does the decision eliminate the other judicial legislation regarding unlimited power through misuse of the commerce clause, as some think it does. This is simple and pure trashing of the Constitution in favor of allowing the fedgove to do whatever it wishes, with occasional dissents when 5 judges decide not to like what it does. This is government by whim, not by law.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

No, it actually means one of three things, he's a liar, he doesn't know what a tax hike is, or he's a politician who's fleeced you.

But only a buffoon would be fleeced right?

"or he's a politician who's fleeced you."

(1) Fleeced means tricked, which is pretty close to lying.

(2) When Obama was campaigning he promised change, bringing people together, and transparency. So if he "fleeced" anyone, that necessarily means he lied on the campaign trail, doesn't it? That doesn't sound like the "change" he promised.

(3) He didn't fleece me, because I don't worship at his altar. I didn't believe for one second he was going to add millions to insurance rolls, increase coverage for all of them, and lower costs. Only the Kool Aid drinkers got fleeced, not the people who live in the real world and act accordingly.

Yes, only a buffoon would allow himself to get fleeced by Obama. His opponents are obviously not the ones getting fleeced, however...his disciples are the ones getting fleeced. The people who buy into his liberal rehtoric are the ones getting fleeced. The ones who accept it when Obama says Medicare isn't going bankrupt, are the ones who are getting fleeced. The ones who accept it when Obama sas that Social Security isn't in serious trouble, are the ones getting fleeced.

Because Obama is tricking them into believing that all those benefits will still be there in 30 years. And they will not. The impact of the Baby Boomers is a mathematical guarantee that those benefits will not exist for subsequent generations, not at anywhere near current benefit and funding levels.

Unfortunately for liberals, arithmetic trumps ideology.

Likwid, I know Obama is full of crap when he denies that Social Security and Medicare are in serious trouble. Liberals don't question anything that comes out of his mouth, as long as he is promising to give them goodies. I know that 7-th grade mathematics means those benefits cannot possibly survive much longer, so I am planning accordingly. Liberals believe Obama's false promises. When the demographic earthquake of the baby boomer generation brings down the house of cards, those who believed Obama will be left with nothing but his empty promises. Those who use their brains will weather the storm.

I'm saving for retirement and my kids' education in post-tax accounts, and I'm almost done. When the house of cards collapses, and we realize that european-level income tax rates are the only way to pay our bills, I won't have much pre-tax income for you and your ilk to touch. Unfortunately, Obama is "fleecing", in your words, millions of saps into believeing that things are better than they are.

We'll see who gets fleeced, and who didn't.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm saving for retirement and my kids' education in post-tax accounts, and I'm almost done. When the house of cards collapses, and we realize that european-level income tax rates are the only way to pay our bills, I won't have much pre-tax income for you and your ilk to touch.

So tell me, since you're obviously on the up and up, who exactly is "you and your ilk"?

[zimmy]

Republican idea to have the mandate and penalty. Why does that get ignored? If one is going to go without insurance and make everyone else pay, why shouldnt they get taxed to cover those expenses, which is what it effectively does. Also, why do the cons lie and call the law a tax increase? The tax is on those who choose not to be insured in order to cover the inevitable costs to others because of the lack of insurance. There is a penalty (what one justice called a tax), but the law is not "a tax. "

Do they really think people are that stupid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Republican idea to have the mandate and penalty. Why does that get ignored? If one is going to go without insurance and make everyone else pay, why shouldnt they get taxed to cover those expenses, which is what it effectively does. Also, why do the cons lie and call the law a tax increase? The tax is on those who choose not to be insured in order to cover the inevitable costs to others because of the lack of insurance. There is a penalty (what one justice called a tax), but the law is not "a tax. "

Do they really think people are that stupid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well put

Unless you provide free insurance to those that choose to scam the system or not work. This is just another entitlement program that will cost trillions and cost hardworking Americans more money.

[justplugit]

LOL Buck, that pic says it all, it's worth a 1000 words.
You always crack me up.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Republican idea to have the mandate and penalty. Why does that get ignored? If one is going to go without insurance and make everyone else pay, why shouldnt they get taxed to cover those expenses, which is what it effectively does. Also, why do the cons lie and call the law a tax increase? The tax is on those who choose not to be insured in order to cover the inevitable costs to others because of the lack of insurance. There is a penalty (what one justice called a tax), but the law is not "a tax. "

Do they really think people are that stupid?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Republican idea to have the mandate and penalty. Why does that get ignored?"

I've heard this, but don'tr know the details. Zimmy, can you elaborate?

"why shouldnt they get taxed to cover those expenses, which is what it effectively does."

I agree it's a good idea to get freeloaders to pay into the system. here's the failure of Obamacare. It's still cheaper to pay the tax and forgo insurance. Then, because Obamacare also explicitly states that insurance companies cannot refuse someone with pre-existing cionditions, so here is what will happen...young, healthy people still have a financial incentive to not buy insurance until they get sick. And insurance companies cannot survive if people aren't signing up until they get sick.

Furthermore, a huge pecentage of the freeloaders are illegal aliens. Illegal aliens put significant financuial burdens on their communities. I'm not sure I see where Obamacare addresses this.

Every physician in America will tell you that their medical malpractice insurance is (1) insanly expensive, and (2) a cost that, naturally, gets passed on to the patient. Everyonhe agrees that some fair, compassionate tort reform would go a long way to reducing health care costs for all of us. Obamacare doesn't addres this, because Democrats are as beholden to teh Trial Lawyers Lobby as Republicans are to the National Rifle Association.

Finally, Obama's federal government is giving a lot of Obamacare waivers to businesses that are sympathetic to liberal causes.

Obamacare has some awesome stated goals. But Obama is going about it in a bad way, rewarding his political allies (at the expense of everyone else), and sllowing people to enroll in insurance only after they get sick.

"Also, why do the cons lie and call the law a tax increase?"

Zimmy, you are really off the deep end here. Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor called it a tax increase. Are they conservatives who are lying?

Zimmy, in this very post, you said this..."why shouldnt they get taxed..." So, even you are calling it a tax. And since that is a tax that doesn't exist today, that necessarily means it is a tax increase. Are you a lying conservative?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

So tell me, since you're obviously on the up and up, who exactly is "you and your ilk"?

You're damn right I'm on the up and up.

By you and your ilk, I mean liberals. The liberals that are responsible for the wonderful financial situations that every single blue state is in today...CT, MA, IL, CA...

Liberals like you who think it's sound economic policy to reward people to come to your state who don't want to work, and foce out people who want to work and be left alone. We are now learning that policy was short-sighted and stupid.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I agree it's a good idea to get freeloaders to pay into the system.

Yup, everyone no matter what salary they make should be taxed, and
anyone who is receiving stuff not paid for by the freeloaders should have
taxes taken out too.
This way they all have a horse in the race and may become more attentive
as to the Govt raising taxes.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Yup, everyone no matter what salary they make should be taxed, and
anyone who is receiving stuff not paid for by the freeloaders should have
taxes taken out too.
This way they all have a horse in the race and may become more attentive
as to the Govt raising taxes.

I am not sure what else Jim said other than your quote, but the bit you said about everyone should be taxed, no matter what salary? They are. The tax they may not pay if they make little enough is income tax. Saying they don't pay taxes is incorrect and a scam of the right in order to get people in an uproar so there is enough sentiment to keep the highest tax brackets effective tax rate at historic lows.

[zimmy]

"The reality is that the income tax is one of a number of types of taxes that individuals pay, both over the course of their lifetimes and in a given year, and it makes little sense to treat it as though it were the only tax that matters. Some 82 percent of working households pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.[15] In fact, low- and moderate-income people pay a much larger share of their incomes in federal payroll taxes than high-income people do: taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale paid an average of 8.8 percent of their incomes in payroll taxes in 2007, compared to 1.6 percent of income for those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (see Figure 2).[16]"

Some might find this link interesting, especially those who are duped into the idea that no federal income taxes equates they don't pay taxes.

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

"The reality is that the income tax is one of a number of types of taxes that individuals pay, both over the course of their lifetimes and in a given year, and it makes little sense to treat it as though it were the only tax that matters. Some 82 percent of working households pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.[15] In fact, low- and moderate-income people pay a much larger share of their incomes in federal payroll taxes than high-income people do: taxpayers in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale paid an average of 8.8 percent of their incomes in payroll taxes in 2007, compared to 1.6 percent of income for those in the top 1 percent of the income distribution (see Figure 2).[16]"

Some might find this link interesting, especially those who are duped into the idea that no federal income taxes equates they don't pay taxes.

Misconceptions and Realities About Who Pays Taxes — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

"those who are duped into the idea that no federal income taxes equates they don't pay taxes."

I don't believe that those who pay no income tax, therefore pay no taxes. I have not, therefore, been duped. But I can make a claim very similar to yours, and say that liberals have been "duped" into believing that evasion of federal income taxes is no big deal.

Millions and millions of people live and work in this country, and pay exactly $0 in federal income taxes. Does that mean they don't pay a cent in taxes? No. But it does mean they are getting a huge subsidy at the hands of those who do pay federal income tax.

People who pay no federal income tax still pay sales tax, property tax, cigarette tax, etc. However, those who do pay federal income tax ALSO have to pay those additional taxes. So no matter what liberal shovel you use to pile on the BS, the inescapable truth is that federal income taxes represent a significant burden, one which almost 50% of American households avoid. Some of those households can easily afford a modest federal income tax. Those people drive on highways, enjoy the services of the FBI and the military. There's no earthly reason why half the households in the country pay no federal income tax. Those people are not all poor. The poverty rate in this country is higher than I'd like it to be, but it ain't anywhere near 50%.

Liberals use these tactics to buy votes.