June 29, 2012
— Ace Devall Patrick, an Obama surrogate, re-stated on a conference call that the ObamaTax was not a tax, but a penalty.
“Don’t believe the hype that the other side is selling,” Patrick said on a conference call organized by President Obama’s campaign.“I just want to respond to the frankly bizarre attack, which is the claim this act represents a big tax increase on the middle class,” Patrick said. “First, this is a penalty. It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting. And all the rest of us pay for it today."
Taxes are for the purpose of raising revenues, not for penalizing activities (or inactivities) the government doesn't favor. So on that score, he's right.
Okay, let's put this in writing. Let's pass a law that states, unambiguously, that neither Congress nor the President believe that this is a tax, and do not intend it to be a tax, and do not mean for it to have the legal classification of a tax. That it is and shall be American law that the mandate is not a tax for any purposes, including as parsed by the courts.
Let's pass that bill, and send it on over to the President for his signature. After all, he says it's not a tax.
Or Do It The Other Way... and propose that Democrats state it's officially a tax.
If they decline, bring suit again.
via @tsrbike.
Good Piece By Richard Epstein: He wrote in the NYT, but I'm linking American Thinker.
As a matter of constitutional text, legal history and logic, the power to regulate commerce and the power to tax should not be separated. It is not good for the court or the country that the chief justice's position in such an important case is confused at its core....
Through the early 20th century, the Supreme Court was cognizant of this tight relationship between the power to regulate an activity directly and to the power to tax it. The basic idea relies on a simple economic insight: taxation and regulation are close substitutes, so a limitation on one power matters little if the other power is still available. There is no practical difference between ordering an action, and taxing or fining people who don't do that same thing. If the Constitution limits direct federal powers, it must also limit Congress's indirect power of taxation.
...
Chief Justice Roberts has ignored this fundamental principle: If direct regulation is beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause (as he held), then taxation as an indirect route to the same regulation should be off limits as well (as he failed to hold).
Obama's lawyers urged to Roberts that the federal government's powers were unlimited, via the Commerce Clause.
Roberts sharply disagreed -- he ruled the federal government's powers were unlimited, via the taxing power.
Color me unpersuaded by the chorus of "Wow, we super-won the long-game!"
That last bit via Andy, @theh2.
Posted by: Ace at
09:24 AM
| Comments (326)
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.
This, THIS, is the one silver lining in all this.
4 months of the Democrats either lying about Obamatax or admitting it's a Tax.
Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 09:26 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: RushBabe at June 29, 2012 09:26 AM (tQHzJ)
Of course not, all that matters is how many liberals are on the Court. And squishes.
Posted by: BradleyJ at June 29, 2012 09:26 AM (XDRsa)
Posted by: Tami at June 29, 2012 09:27 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: weew at June 29, 2012 09:27 AM (4yFKY)
Posted by: WalrusRex at June 29, 2012 09:27 AM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: Jypsea Rose is @AmericanGypsea at June 29, 2012 09:28 AM (iKSAz)
Tax, period.
-- SCOTUS, Final Arbiter, and all that...
As for the freeloaders, sir, they are YOUR voters. Nice of you to show them some love!
Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars at June 29, 2012 09:29 AM (HmCnI)
This quote is m-o-n-e-y.
“First, this is a penalty. It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting. And all the rest of us pay for it today."
A penalty on whom?
It's a penalty on "the rest of us" as Deval Patrick puts it, to pay for the perpetual freeloaders that Deval and Obama and the Democrats put in the system.
It's a goddamm racket.
Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 09:30 AM (G/zuv)
That's a mighty strange way to say 'Our constituency..'.......
Posted by: Portnoy at June 29, 2012 09:30 AM (AXpz0)
Posted by: Devil Patrick at June 29, 2012 09:30 AM (/Mla1)
Since health insurance is now....a Tax...
We can deduct this expendature on our tax returns now, right?
Posted by: wheatie at June 29, 2012 09:31 AM (jPxSq)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 29, 2012 09:31 AM (8y9MW)
Unfortunately most of the nation likes being lied to.
Whisper sweet nothings in their ears, they'll believe them.
Trust me honey, I won't in your mouth,
I'll have the money next week,
Your healthcare will always be free,
Posted by: rd at June 29, 2012 09:31 AM (9sUlj)
Why the fuck would liberals have donated millions yesterday when they won the decision??
They tell such stupid lies...
Posted by: Mama AJ at June 29, 2012 09:32 AM (SUKHu)
Posted by: Jaynie59 at June 29, 2012 09:32 AM (4zKCA)
Posted by: Scummy Dread Lord Judge Pirate Roberts at June 29, 2012 09:32 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: WalrusRex at June 29, 2012 09:32 AM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 29, 2012 09:32 AM (w41GQ)
Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 09:33 AM (UZQM8)
“First, this is a penalty. It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting. And all the rest of us pay for it today."
ER's are packed full of illegals. Even in areas where you didn't even know there ARE illegals. And this law (and the tax that goes with it) doesn't apply to illegals.
Posted by: yinzer at June 29, 2012 09:33 AM (/Mla1)
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
Posted by: Zombie Lewis Carroll at June 29, 2012 09:33 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Tami at June 29, 2012 01:27 PM
I'm pretty sure the people who shamelessly claim free contraceptives and abortion are women's healthcare issues can have it both ways.
Posted by: huerfano at June 29, 2012 09:34 AM (bAGA/)
Young people, by and large, do not need health insurance.
It's nice to have, but unnecessary for most young people under 40. We call these people "freeloaders," now.
The real freeloaders, the illegals and the public sector employees, will never pay for health insurance.
Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 09:34 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: WalrusRex at June 29, 2012 09:34 AM (Hx5uv)
Like many here, I was depressed about this yesterday, but I'm also quite willing to admit that I don't understand all of the legal implications and outyear effects. There are simply too many indisputably conservative heavy hitters (except for the reflexive RINOs under every bed types) who like the decision to dismiss it out of hand as a capitulation and a disaster. Yes, you can wrap yourself in knots trying to suss out the n-dimensional chess aspects, but at this point, I'm going to chew on it for awhile before I cut my wrists. I just don't know yet.
Posted by: pep at June 29, 2012 09:34 AM (YXmuI)
ObamaTax is a tax. No - it's a dessert topping.
Relax, ObamaTax is both a tax and a dessert topping.
Posted by: Roy at June 29, 2012 09:34 AM (VndSC)
I haven't read the whole decision, but from what I have read, Roberts wasn't even calling it a Tax.
Try to follow this "logic."
The Mandate is not a tax, therefore the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply.
The Commerce Clause does not stretch so far as to allow congress to force you into purchasing a product, so the Mandate would be unconstitutional.
However, the if it were passed as a Tax, it would be constitutional.
Therefore, even though it's not a tax, since it would be constitutional if it were a tax, it is now constitutional.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 29, 2012 09:34 AM (8y9MW)
And Choomer sent this metal midget out there to defend ObamaHealthTax?
Smooth move there, Choomer...
Posted by: Mjölnir the banhammer at June 29, 2012 09:34 AM (Jls4P)
Only now that they have a finanical interest in the money they spend on our healthcare are they concerned about the amount they spend.
*sigh* I miss the old days when we weren't slaves...
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 29, 2012 09:35 AM (d0Tfm)
S"ince health insurance is now....a Tax...
We can deduct this expendature on our tax returns now, right?"
Very interesting...
Posted by: Jaws at June 29, 2012 09:35 AM (4I3Uo)
But if I get hit by a bus...
Obama actually used that example. Can you believe that? I still can't and I heard the clip a hundred times.
If I get hit by a bus....
If my head suddenly gets stuck in my ass...
If my arms fall off...
If...
If...
...
Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 09:36 AM (G/zuv)
It is hard to respect ANY court containing Sotomayor, Kagan, and Ginsburg.
Posted by: Hrothgar at June 29, 2012 09:36 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Devil Patrick at June 29, 2012 01:30 PM (/Mla1)
Seriously....they were sponging off you before, and now they can continue to do so but we get to take direct credit for it. Love us, continue to vote for us...WE CARE!!!
Looters Unite!!!!
Fuckers.....goddamit this shit just pisses me off to no end......
Posted by: Portnoy at June 29, 2012 09:36 AM (AXpz0)
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 29, 2012 09:37 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Mikhail Bloomberg at June 29, 2012 09:37 AM (/Mla1)
Posted by: AoSHQ Random SCOAMF/SCOAMT Generator 3000 (tm) at June 29, 2012 09:37 AM (mMijF)
Last few weeks Deval Patrick has adamantly opposed setting limits to EBT cards.
So he's one to talk about freeloaders.
Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 09:38 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 29, 2012 01:34 PM (8y9MW)
Even though as a Tax, it does not meet the 'uniform throughout these United States' (as states can be exempt), and with Religious Exemptions, does not pass the Freedom of Religion aspects because it favors some religions over others.
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 29, 2012 09:38 AM (lZBBB)
Thank you John Roberts. I've been trying my damndest to convince myself to vote for Romney over Gary Johnson. I did it by realizing their would probably be SCOTUS picks that Romney would nominate instead of BHO and that would help us keep unconstitutional laws from being past in Dem controlled years. Look how goddamned well that argument helped yesterday.
New reason? Vote Romney cuz he'll overturn OCare, day fucking one. Seriously? Do you really beleive these spineless bastards would do that?
We had it. We had Kennedy. Remember him? He was the only thing, for months, standing between us and a complete repeal of this shit. One man. If we got Kennedy, Obamacare was history. And he wanted to overturn it. We had him on our side. We had it. We won. Yet another one 'of our own' fucked us. Again.
Posted by: levi at June 29, 2012 09:39 AM (bQiFu)
I just want to respond to the frankly bizarre attack
I cannot believe that I am agreeing with Devall MFing Patrick but I agree it's a frank bizarre attack to say this is a tax.
brb have to go scour myself with lye for agreeing with the jackhole now
Posted by: alexthechick - Jindal 2020 at June 29, 2012 09:39 AM (VtjlW)
So be careful, everyone.
A bus might come by any second now and run you over. It could happen anywhere.
Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 09:39 AM (G/zuv)
It's all a joke now.
Posted by: Temper Tantrum at June 29, 2012 09:40 AM (AWmfW)
It may not look like a tax, and you may not think it's a tax. But if the SCOTUS said it's a tax, it's a fuckin tax.
Posted by: yinzer at June 29, 2012 09:40 AM (/Mla1)
So be careful, everyone.
A bus might come by any second now and run you over. It could happen anywhere.
Word.
Posted by: Barry's typical white granny at June 29, 2012 09:40 AM (UOM48)
"Taxes are for the purpose of raising revenues, not for penalizing activities (or inactivities) the government doesn't favor."
Really? Aren't the smoking/alcohol/etc/ 'sin' taxes all for raising revenues and penalizing activities?
Posted by: Lea at June 29, 2012 09:41 AM (lIU4e)
I should clarify I mean it was a bizarre attack by Roberts to say it was a tax.
On that whole freeloading by going to the ER thing, well, hey, just a suggestion, why don't you fucking repeal the fucking requirements that anyone who comes to the fucking ER must receive treatment without regard to pay?
Posted by: alexthechick - Jindal 2020 at June 29, 2012 09:41 AM (VtjlW)
Uhhh...that was the main thrust of Robert's opinion. It's a tax.
Wow, I worked 'thrust' in to a post...
I am so hard right now......
Posted by: Portnoy at June 29, 2012 09:41 AM (AXpz0)
27 In Massachusetts, the mandate is a tax DEDUCTION.
Ahah!
So there is a precedent.
So then....we should be able to deduct what we pay for Health Insurance on our tax returns.
Actually, we should be able to go back and deduct it for the last two years.....since the date they passed the Obamacare law.
Posted by: wheatie at June 29, 2012 09:41 AM (jPxSq)
Color me unpersuaded by the chorus of "Wow, we super-won the long-game!" <<<<
Those idiots make me want to beat the fucking RINO-gravy out of them. I've never heard anything as weak and craven from supposed intelligent people.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2012 09:42 AM (QSizi)
Who could he be talking about there? Illegal immigrants (er, I mean undocumented workers... oops, or should I say "economic refugees") who seem to take advantage of not being denied emergency room care quite a lot?
That sounds kinda raaaaaaaaacist.
Posted by: hmmmm at June 29, 2012 09:42 AM (mMijF)
56@49
You can add Robbertz to that list now
And Breyer - don't forget Breyer.
RE: International Law: "It's not binding, but it's instructive."
What a worm.
Posted by: Marybeth at June 29, 2012 09:43 AM (fkaOH)
The wonderful thing about taxes
Is taxes are wonderful things!
Their tops are made out of rubber
Their bottoms are made out of springs!
They're bouncy, trouncy, flouncy, pouncy
Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun!
But the most wonderful thing about taxes is
Obamacare is one
Taxes are cuddly fellas
Taxes are awfully sweet
Ev'ryone el-us is jealous
That's why I repeat... and repeat
The wonderful thing about taxes
Is taxes are marvelous claps!
They're loaded with vim and vigor
They love to leap in your laps!
They're jumpy, bumpy, clumpy, thumpy
Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun!
But the most wonderful thing about taxes is
Obamacare is one.
Posted by: Tigger Roberts at June 29, 2012 09:43 AM (Hx5uv)
Devall Patrick;; Patrick said. “First, this is a penalty. It’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting. And all the rest of us pay for it today."
may i add this is a rather interesting statement , it wasn't sold to the populace as freeloaders , in fact hasn't the basic premise been..
Poor folks that can't even pay for their own birth control pills? and we should HELP those poor folks with some stuff EVERYONE should have access to?
Posted by: willow at June 29, 2012 09:43 AM (TomZ9)
Those idiots make me want to beat the fucking RINO-gravy out of them.
I wouldn't be so sure any one of them beating that drum even wants it repealed, they are likely fighting for it.
Oh sure, they're against it... until it looks like it might actually go, and then they draw straws and one of them drops cover and pulls a Roberts.
Posted by: entropy at June 29, 2012 09:44 AM (TULs6)
Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2012 09:45 AM (WkuV6)
"L" not "i"......"L"
Good lord I'm going to have to get a new username aren't I.
I never said "we won the super long game." (And yes, I realize Ace isn't quoting me with that, he's only h/t me for the VC reference. But here's my counter argument to his post)
I suggested that if we were going to lose, this was a more palatableoption to lose on. I feel like the expansion of the Taxing power (if there even was one. Taxes have been used to "encourage" economic activity, e.g. buying a home, for some time. I don't see a way of turning that clock back) was more acceptable than a wholesale expansion of the commerce clause. Preferred outcome? No. Good Outcome? Also no. Workable? Eh, maybe.
Tax code needs a good reforming anyway, that's agreed. So we can kill two birds with one stone here. Reform the tax code, whole hog, and solve this nasty "tax power expansion" problem. Granted it doesn't prevent future groups from coming in and tinkering with the tax code again to encourage "action" but elections do have consequeneces and there will never be a time for which we can not be vigilant against expansive government (as much as I wish there would be.)
Posted by: tsrblke at June 29, 2012 09:45 AM (22rSN)
Well as they say you get what you pay for.
Posted by: Doctor at June 29, 2012 09:45 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: Natasha at June 29, 2012 01:42 PM (jU5uf)
It's a taxate! No, it's a mantax!
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 29, 2012 09:46 AM (RD7QR)
Chief Justice Roberts has ignored this fundamental principle: If direct regulation is beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause (as he held),
Is there a chance that Roberts was able to do this (limit the CC), with the agreement of the 4 libs (or without their realization) ...
then taxation as an indirect route to the same regulation should be off limits as well (as he failed to hold).
... and the price was this?
Maybe this was the best he could do. I remain suspicious, but as posted on Ace yesterday, we, the American People, should not rely on the SCOTUS to fix things ... we should force Congress to not break things. Maybe Roberts really did help.
In any event, November is coming, and anything other than a vote for Romney will get us 4 more years.
Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 09:46 AM (6KG30)
On the upside, Tom and Travolta can finally be together.
*I denounce myself for even going O/T on this, but I'm just so sick and angry over Obamacare I need a distraction*
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 29, 2012 09:46 AM (UOM48)
why don't you fucking repeal the fucking requirements that anyone who comes to the fucking ER must receive treatment without regard to pay?
Or even just refuse treatment to people who don't have a medical emergency and use the ER as a primary care provider (without paying).
Big difference between that and mandating life saving treatment. Right now ER's are legally obligated to treat your hangnail.
Posted by: entropy at June 29, 2012 09:46 AM (TULs6)
First, they opened the floodgates for illegals.
Then they made it against the law for hospitals to refuse giving treatment.
The Democrats are 100% responsible for the "high-cost emergency room setting" costs and they did it by design. It was culminating to this point -- this law -- govt socialized health care.
Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 09:47 AM (G/zuv)
And why is it the Constitution never puts the seat back down???!!!
Posted by: Ward of the State #4559141A at June 29, 2012 09:47 AM (6ITq9)
Posted by: Win Some, Lose Some! But Mainly Lose. at June 29, 2012 09:47 AM (d2QQ4)
So this is for penalizing the 800,000 illegals he just let stay?
Posted by: Buzzsaw at June 29, 2012 09:48 AM (tf9Ne)
Sorry the Official Arbiter of Such Things says it is. They made tomatoes a vegetable in 1893 (Nix V Hedden) they can certainly make your penalty a tax.
This is my response to that assertion.
If you disagree that Obamacare is a TAX, do the right thing and support a repeal because SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional on any other basis.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at June 29, 2012 09:48 AM (0q2P7)
Some parts of the law have proven popular. But the insurance mandate is widely disliked.
Each time The Associated Press has asked in polls, more than 8 in 10 Americans have said the government should not have the right to require everyone to buy health insurance.
I added some bolding if it's not all bold. Over 80% of Americans don't think anyone should HAVE to buy a product. That is an unprecedented level of agreement.
So call it a tax, a mandate, or Nancy Pelosi's rancid cooter..........nobody wants this turd.
Posted by: GnuBreed at June 29, 2012 09:48 AM (ccXZP)
Posted by: Honey Badger, drinker of mead at June 29, 2012 09:49 AM (GvYeG)
The sad part is we are ignoring the craven bleatings of the four libs on the court.
Even though the four liberal justices are hacks that would approve shipping us all off to concentration camps if the democrats were for it.
If any one of them had any integrity, Roberts would not have mattered.
Posted by: rd at June 29, 2012 09:49 AM (9sUlj)
That dude with a dick, two balls and one X and one Y chromosome is a chick, because he's wearing a dress and he says he's a chick.
Say whatever the fuck you want to say and it's a fucking fact.
Fuck these mentally insane sacks of shit.
Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 09:49 AM (Ky1+e)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 29, 2012 09:49 AM (SY2Kh)
http://tinyurl.com/cs5kx52
Posted by: Andy at June 29, 2012 09:49 AM (5Rurq)
Posted by: WalrusRex at June 29, 2012 09:51 AM (Hx5uv)
Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2012 09:51 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Honey Tiberius Badger, drinker of mead at June 29, 2012 09:51 AM (GvYeG)
Posted by: Al Sharpton at June 29, 2012 09:51 AM (jucos)
Posted by: Daybrother at June 29, 2012 09:52 AM (HHXXi)
ok Patrick,
So SirTaxalot is penalizing FREELOADERS (not poor folk that need bcpills for free becuase that just wouldn't be right to make them pay for it)
Hey Sandra F did you hear what Patrick?Obama just called You and Your friends?
yeah i'm surprised too, I had thought he cared about you and your plight.
Posted by: willow at June 29, 2012 09:52 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: E Howad Hunt at June 29, 2012 09:52 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2012 09:52 AM (WkuV6)
There are a lot of ways out of our medical trap. And ER management is one of them. No care without proof of payment unless in immediate danger of losing life, limb, or eyesight, in which case the hospital can take your fingerprints and keep them on file pending payment. No forgiveness of debts incurred under obligatory ER visits via bankruptcy.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at June 29, 2012 09:52 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 09:52 AM (Ky1+e)
1. Force banks to relax loan requirements.
2. Wait for the mortgage collapse.
3. Call for sweeping socialistic banking reforms.
1. unionize the teachers
2. ruin public education
3. demand more $$ to "fix" education
1. Give guns to criminals.
2. Wait for the carnage.
3. pass new gun laws
See the pattern?
1. Create a scenario that precipitates a problem
2. Watch problem manifest itself.
3. Offer leftist solution to fix problem
Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 09:52 AM (G/zuv)
RollCall doesn't seem to be responding on the web
Posted by: E Howad Hunt at June 29, 2012 09:53 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: Win Some, Lose Some! But Mainly Lose. at June 29, 2012 09:53 AM (MVGKx)
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at June 29, 2012 09:53 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: Mekan at June 29, 2012 09:53 AM (hm8tW)
Posted by: phoenixgirl, team dagny at June 29, 2012 09:53 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: Ward of the State #4559141A at June 29, 2012 09:53 AM (6ITq9)
The May 24 letter to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member on the panel, quotes from and describes in detail a secret wiretap application that has become a point of debate in the GOP’s “Fast and Furious” gun-walking probe.
The wiretap applications are under court seal, and releasing such information to the public would ordinarily be illegal. But Issa appears to be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution, which offers immunity for Congressional speech, especially on a chamberÂ’s floor.
Posted by: E Howad Hunt at June 29, 2012 09:54 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 29, 2012 01:51 PM (UOM4
You could call it Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.*
*Shamelessly stolen from that t-shirt you see sometimes in the redder parts of the country.
Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at June 29, 2012 09:54 AM (RD7QR)
Posted by: Former Mass. Resident at June 29, 2012 09:54 AM (gvWL9)
Posted by: Roberts at June 29, 2012 09:54 AM (UZQM8)
Obamacare will NEVER be repealed. Ever. Too many stupid pigs at the trough and too many gutless Republicans in office guarantee that.
Posted by: Natasha at June 29, 2012 09:54 AM (jU5uf)
Posted by: Doctor Fish at June 29, 2012 01:47 PM (hvwLi)
HEY!!!
Posted by: Ferris Buller's Wife at June 29, 2012 09:55 AM (AXpz0)
Poor folks that can't even pay for their own birth control pills? and we should HELP those poor folks with some stuff EVERYONE should have access to?<<<
Oh, I'm on board with free birth control. Sterilization for anyone who wants it. Absolutely no cost for you to get your plumbing disconnected.
And in a couple of generations, we will have finally passed all these useless eaters through the body politic and right on out the politics' ass.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2012 09:55 AM (QSizi)
Posted by: Your Betters in Government at June 29, 2012 09:56 AM (jucos)
Posted by: Jaws at June 29, 2012 09:56 AM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: Make them own the tax at June 29, 2012 09:57 AM (x8Wor)
"Proposition 106 was proposed to amend the Arizona Constitution by barring any rules or regulations that would force state residents to participate in a health-care system. The proposed amendment would also ensure that individuals would have the right to pay for private health insurance." Posted by: phoenixgirl, team dagny
I believe that is constitutional as a blank piece of paper, otherwise it isn't constitutional. So it is now a blank piece of paper. Have a nice day. - Justice Roberts
Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 09:57 AM (Ky1+e)
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 29, 2012 01:49 PM (SY2Kh)
Those taxes just impact the evil inventors, manufacturers and distributors of medical devices, they won't apply to you if you vote D.
Now you middle class people that use too much health care, some health care device "penalties" should be expected to appear so that you pay your fair share.
Posted by: Hrothgar at June 29, 2012 09:57 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 29, 2012 09:57 AM (famk3)
Per the last story, the economy is slowing down.
If O'Dogeater gets reelected, O'DeathPanelCare stays in force, and the result of that will be an economy moving at high speed in reverse.
The USA could very well speed right past Europe on the road to ruin.
Posted by: Boots at June 29, 2012 09:57 AM (neKzn)
An emergency room is only a high cost setting because people don't pay. The overhead of keeping physicians on site isn't real overhead if they are busy the whole time.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at June 29, 2012 09:58 AM (0q2P7)
I like the t-shirts that have the caption "Homeland Security" and have a group of Native Americans posing...
Posted by: Mjölnir the banhammer at June 29, 2012 09:58 AM (Jls4P)
Posted by: Dr Spank at June 29, 2012 09:58 AM (4cRnj)
FWIW,
There's absolutely no reason everyone should have to buy insurance anyway. If Mitt Freaken Romney would prefer just to set aside 5million in an account for "Future healthcare" and just let it sit there until he needs it, that's his freakin problem.
Heck IIRC, even state auto insurance mandates understand this (if you can prove you can basically "self-insure" to speak crudely and not in a legal way, you can avoid said insurance.)
I understand the conundrum the law created, but that's because it was a bad law from the start, you can't simply legislate your way out of a problem you created within the law! (I don't really buy the assessment that the free-rider problem "doesn't exist." because we don't have guaranteed issue right now. Clearly EMTALA creates a problem, and GI would expand that even farther, as EMTALA only creates a duty to stablize, bad enough but not as bad as the ripple effect of GI. Of course that alone isn't an argument for a mandate, its an argument against GI.)
Posted by: tsrblke at June 29, 2012 09:59 AM (22rSN)
Barky is in Colorado Springs, to...."visit the wildfires".
Eh...I don't remember him being the slightest bit concerned about the wildfires in Texas last year.
Or the ones in Oklahoma, where we even had some 'fire tornadoes'.
Millions of acres were burned in TX....and Barky didn't give a shit.
But then, it wasn't an election year last year.
Posted by: wheatie at June 29, 2012 09:59 AM (jPxSq)
If the President, Congress and Supreme Court are going to ignore the Constitution. Does it really matter who is in Washington?
We are screwed!! The great American experiment is over.
Posted by: airandee at June 29, 2012 10:00 AM (9GHCK)
"ItÂ’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting. And all the rest of us pay for it today."
Wow. It's now OK to talk directly about "freeloaders" and "the rest of us"..? Cool! You can't win that one, liberals.
"ItÂ’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their Section 8 homes without without paying for them. And all the rest of us pay for it today."
"ItÂ’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their food stamps without paying for it. And all the rest of us pay for it today."
"ItÂ’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their cash benefits without working for it. And all the rest of us pay for it today."
"ItÂ’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their college education without paying for it. And all the rest of us pay for it today."
It's a new day.
Posted by: CJ at June 29, 2012 10:00 AM (9KqcB)
According to the letter, the wiretap applications contained a startling amount of detail about the operation, which would have tipped off anyone who read them closely about what tactics were being used.
Holder and Cummings have both maintained that the wiretap applications did not contain such details and that the applications were reviewed narrowly for probable cause, not for whether any investigatory tactics contained followed Justice Department policy.
The wiretap applications were signed by senior DOJ officials in the departmentÂ’s criminal division, including Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco and another official who is now deceased.
Posted by: Dr Spank at June 29, 2012 10:00 AM (4cRnj)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 29, 2012 10:00 AM (UOM48)
In China you can have more than one child if you pay a penalty. If you can't pay the penalty they can force you to abort your baby. Choice!
Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 10:00 AM (Ky1+e)
If you find a gal that does, please let me know so I can immediately marry her.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at June 29, 2012 10:01 AM (SY2Kh)
>>>*Shamelessly stolen from that t-shirt you see sometimes in the redder parts of the country.
If you had a black powder magazine at your shop you could add Explosives to the list.*
*(Anyone who has ever purchased black powder to be shipped to their house knows it is classed as a high explosive)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at June 29, 2012 10:01 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: booger at June 29, 2012 10:01 AM (HI6wa)
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at June 29, 2012 10:01 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at June 29, 2012 10:01 AM (ePYQF)
1. Subsidize college tuition with grants
2. Watch the tuition go up and up and up...
3. Demand college loan reform
Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 10:02 AM (G/zuv)
===============
Just wait. By the time we're done pimping this POS to the sheep, the majority will love it. LOVE IT!
Posted by: Obama's Palace Guard, the MFM at June 29, 2012 10:02 AM (MBmtt)
Posted by: HoboJerky, profit of DOOM! at June 29, 2012 10:03 AM (ePYQF)
Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2012 10:03 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Dems at June 29, 2012 10:03 AM (UZQM8)
I'd be very unhappy to pay a tax for fucking.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 10:04 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2012 10:05 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Truck Monkey at June 29, 2012 10:05 AM (jucos)
Tom and Katie getting a divorce!!1!!!!!
OMG!!!!
Now THAT puts the icing on the cake for this week.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 29, 2012 10:06 AM (CP+yl)
The ruling was total shit and Benedict Roberts clearly violated any sense of "good behavior" (far more than a penalty is a tax, for sure) and needs to be impeached. But that won't happen.
Face it, the language has been totally mangled (which some on the right are claiming to be thrilled about for some strange reason) and America has been formally killed. Welcome to the American Socialist Superstate. That's what we have now. Were all things are possible by taxation and all things are possibly taxation ... only the SCOTASS really knows. So, Congressional rules about taxes ... LOL. No one can know if something is a "tax" until the SCOTASS gets a hold of it.
It's time for a national divorce. That's about all there is reasonably left to anyone who wants to remain American. Yeah ... we'll go through the motions and vote for Mittens - who had to stress that he wants to kill insurance companies by keeping the "no pre-existing conditions" idiocy (because everyone knows that insurance without actuaries is the best sort of insurance business) but we do know that deep down, this nation has been done in. Liberty is killed. English has been made a mockery of by our judicial system (even worse than usual). We have a SCOTASS argument that says up to page 15 that the mandate and penalty is not a tax, but then miraculously deforms into a tax for "arguing on the merits". LOL. Morbid humor has a certain bite to it.
We are now all subjects of the insane and lawless American Socialist Superstate. One election isn't going to change that. And we have so much pain coming our way as the Fed needs to eventually unwind its positions and drain liquidity ... then one election of reason won't stand.
Divorce papers need to be prepared. Or, at least expected.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 29, 2012 10:06 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: rd at June 29, 2012 10:06 AM (9sUlj)
2. Watch energy prices necessarily skyrocket.
3. Push for unworkable green energy projects that help out well connected political allies.
Posted by: Crisis Creator 3000 (tm) at June 29, 2012 10:06 AM (mMijF)
Obama's lawyers urged to Roberts that the federal government's powers were unlimited, via the Commerce Clause. Roberts sharply disagreed -- he ruled the federal government's powers were unlimited, via the taxing power. Color me unpersuaded by the chorus of "Wow, we super-won the long-game!"
I think that much of the government growth passed via the Commerce Clause would not have passed if it had to rely on a mandate/tax.
Posted by: CJ at June 29, 2012 10:06 AM (9KqcB)
Posted by: Dr Spank
"We working on the others, please hold... "
Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 10:06 AM (Ky1+e)
Posted by: OWS Maggot at June 29, 2012 10:06 AM (jucos)
Posted by: somebody else, not me at June 29, 2012 10:06 AM (nZvGM)
Chief Roberts ruling is beyond flawed and squarely lies within a Faustian type deal structured around ego to the dismissal of .... the foundation of our Republic as stipulated in that which links us to what the founders understood to be our benefactor's perogative for We The People. Which of course is Liberty as gained from inalienable rights as detailed and memorialized in our founding documents and within the written bedrock of our Republic, The Constitution. Which contains explicit instructions to hold fast to the limitation of escalating centralized power as a check against man's desire to consolidate power through kingsmanship and polity.
As to our friend Dr. Charles Krauthammer... at this point I am more interested in his clinical findings of Chief Roberts than his analysis of how the limitation of the commerce clause for a case of first-impression can be viewed as victorious OVER the new law of the land where a Penalty is viewed as a Tax where both poison and antidote were argued interchangeably so as to achieve whatever the progressives and an egotistical Chief would like it to achieve.
We are operating in wide open space lawlessness at this point.
How could I say anything to the contrary... as lawlessness is now the law of the land.
This new law of the land is constructed around a new progressive influence upon now the Supreme Court which is a new Gestalt legal precedent whereby the NEED basis trumps the logical and formulary structure of law, common sense and reasonableness for the new Gestalt Law of Progressivism sees that which it wants as reality....
Dr. Krauthammer, this is what you should be analyzing... because analyzing, free thought and rational discourse at some point are under threat under the new legal rubric of the Progressive Legal Gestaltism.
Regards,
Posted by: Scandia at June 29, 2012 10:07 AM (WzLTm)
CJ, hysterical isn't it.
and much of the countries folks believe it is a nice FREE gesture from their sweet overlords! because of fairness and stuff.
Posted by: willow at June 29, 2012 10:07 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: Dumbshit at June 29, 2012 10:07 AM (q177U)
Posted by: Jean at June 29, 2012 10:07 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:07 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: mpfs
Hey, don't give them any ideas.
Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 02:04 PM (Ky1+e)
================
I LOL'd!!!
Posted by: Tami at June 29, 2012 10:07 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: yinzer at June 29, 2012 10:07 AM (/Mla1)
152
1. Subsidize college tuition with grants
2. Watch the tuition go up and up and up...
3. Demand college loan reform
--------------
Yeah, sooth.....it's a fucking bailout for their lefty college professor buddies.
Who are doing all that great work, indoctrinating the young people into thinking like good little socialists.
Posted by: wheatie at June 29, 2012 10:08 AM (jPxSq)
Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 10:08 AM (UZQM8)
2) Watch costs go up up up
3) Watch service providers flee the market
4)
5)
6) Save Gaia
FIFY
That's their long-term plan. This is just a step on that way
Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 10:08 AM (sbV1u)
And for all the folks that choose not to pay for health insurance, because you don't use medical care? Well, you too are penalized for breathing.
Posted by: Flounder at June 29, 2012 10:09 AM (Kkt/i)
It's their patter; the Left's template to gain power.
It's so simple and obvious but it works so well.
It's Cloward and Piven, right?
Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 10:09 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:10 AM (tyou3)
Jay Carney said "it's not a tax...
At which pont the ad cuts to clips of reporter after reporter declaring the court has ruled it a tax. "Stop the Obama Tax." [fade to black]
Posted by: CJ at June 29, 2012 10:10 AM (9KqcB)
We could get rid of illegals and other who get a free ride using the ER as a clinic simply by repraling the legislation that caused it.
Also by sending the criminals home.
Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 10:10 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 10:11 AM (Ky1+e)
Come on, Sean. You don't really believe the powers in the Left really give a shit about saving the planet, do you?
Posted by: soothsayer at June 29, 2012 10:11 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: Justamom at June 29, 2012 10:11 AM (Wd1Zo)
Posted by: willow at June 29, 2012 10:12 AM (TomZ9)
2) Watch costs go up up up
3) Watch service providers flee the market
4) Ration care Single payer
5) PROFIT Watch more people die
6) Save Gaia
FIFY
That's their long-term plan. This is just a step on that way"
===============
Yes. They are a death cult.
Posted by: Kensington at June 29, 2012 10:12 AM (MBmtt)
Posted by: Jypsea Rose is @AmericanGypsea at June 29, 2012 10:12 AM (iKSAz)
Posted by: Choom Puff Daddy at June 29, 2012 10:13 AM (a1oOO)
Wait until those folks find out that free shit ain't free.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 10:13 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: willow at June 29, 2012 10:13 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:13 AM (tyou3)
And for the upshot.... illegal aliens are exempted from Obamacare.
So the non Tax Tax which is in place to penalize under a framework of a federal statute with new regulations that will increase the cost of healthcare WILL now be paid by citizens for the benefit of non-citizens.
Posted by: Scandia at June 29, 2012 10:13 AM (WzLTm)
@125: Obamacare will NEVER be repealed. Never. Too many stupid pigs at the trough and too many gutless Republicans in office guarantee that.
This +1000.
Posted by: Mary Poppins at June 29, 2012 10:13 AM (zF6Iw)
"It depends on what my definition of 'penalty' is." -Justice Roberts
Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 10:14 AM (Ky1+e)
If Barky and the Dems keep saying...."It's not a Tax"....
Then they are disagreeing with The Dread Justice Roberts.
The Dread Justice Roberts said that the only way ObamaCare is constitutional.....is....as a Tax.
So if Barky and the Dems keep saying that..."It's NOT a Tax"....then they are saying that ObamaCare is NOT constitutional.
They can't have it both ways.
Even though they may try.
Posted by: wheatie at June 29, 2012 10:14 AM (jPxSq)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:14 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: cajun carrot at June 29, 2012 10:14 AM (UZQM8)
Posted by: Meremortal at June 29, 2012 10:15 AM (Usk3+)
Posted by: Tami
Thanks. That kind of stuff makes my day. I'm shallow that way, ya know.
Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 10:15 AM (Ky1+e)
Then let's win the intermediate game by taking the White House and the Senate in 2012.
Interesting how the MSM was so dismissive of the 2010 elections, as if losing the House and several Senate seats was some sort of ex machina anomaly. Now the ACM is a tax hike, and all of the regulatory authority and the accompanying regulations recently generated by The Hive now come under the scrutiny of established federal tax law and the US Constitution equal protection clauses, don't they?
.
Posted by: mrp at June 29, 2012 10:15 AM (HjPtV)
"Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our nation´s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." -CJ Roberts, in the opinion
Posted by: A.G. at June 29, 2012 10:16 AM (rHTdD)
I own one but it's not open to the public
Posted by: Buzzsaw at June 29, 2012 10:16 AM (tf9Ne)
Dismissing an argument because you refuse to address it -or can't - really is what we've come to expect.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 10:17 AM (sbV1u)
So the non Tax Tax which is in place to penalize under a framework of a federal statute with new regulations that will increase the cost of healthcare WILL now be paid by citizens for the benefit of non-citizens.
Posted by: Scandia at June 29, 2012 02:13 PM (WzLTm)
Benedict Roberts personally made a little edit in the preamble of our Constitution (since the document is only for display purposes, these days, anyway):
"and secure the Blessings of Liberty to anyone but ourselves and our Posterity"
What's a few words between subjects and their all-powerful, empathetic, lawless government?
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 29, 2012 10:17 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: Dawnsblood at June 29, 2012 10:17 AM (VHPa2)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:17 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:18 AM (tyou3)
Protect the court's legitimacy by obviously just making shit up?
Good plan.
Roberts, a good Harvard boy. They are sooper smart, and shit.
Posted by: Invictos at June 29, 2012 10:18 AM (OQpzc)
Well, since it's illegal to refuse care in an emergency room in most states, and that's where most illegals end up - your entire argument just disappeared.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 10:19 AM (sbV1u)
They can't have it both ways.
Even though they may try. Posted by: wheatie
Apparently they can. Words mean nothing. Fucking dictionaries, how do those work?
Posted by: Dang at June 29, 2012 10:19 AM (Ky1+e)
Posted by: GW McLintock at June 29, 2012 10:20 AM (MlL3f)
Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 10:20 AM (YdQQY)
Yeah, they are. Because the average pay out is over 4 times more than they put in.
But don't let actual facts from something like an actuarial table, or the Social Security's Administration's own tables change your mind or anything like that.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 10:20 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:20 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: GW McLintock at June 29, 2012 02:20 PM (MlL3f)
There are two possible solutions. The best is an Article V convention. I will not discuss the second because it is a bannable offense.
Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 10:21 AM (YdQQY)
Thanks for the reminder Vic.
I just realized that since everything from the left is a bumper sticker anyway, it's sorta pointless.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 10:22 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:22 AM (tyou3)
Even though they may try.
Posted by: wheatie
It's both ways in the Roberts' decision. It's "not a tax" up to page 15 and then it miraculously deforms into a tax. Sorry, but they get everything. That's what introducing inconsistency into a logical system allows for. All theorems are provable.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 29, 2012 10:22 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: Donald Verrilli at June 29, 2012 10:22 AM (YmPwQ)
Posted by: ADK46er at June 29, 2012 10:23 AM (tkY5j)
Would it have any basis in a Thomas Jefferson quote?
Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 10:23 AM (sbV1u)
Posted by: booger at June 29, 2012 02:01 PM (HI6wa)
Wrong oh my friend, the people being penalized under ACA have money thus they have done something wrong!
Posted by: Hrothgar at June 29, 2012 10:23 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:27 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:29 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: GW McLintock at June 29, 2012 02:20 PM (MlL3f)
_____________________________________
Do you mean to ask what the alternatives are for people operating within the current system, or are you referring to the health care issue in general?__________________If the former, they're going to have to pass on costs to consumers, cut pay for employees, or some combination. Or just close up shop. _____________________________________As to the later - big picture - Americans need to accept that some people will not get the care they want. Some people will suffer, and die earlier than they would if they could afford care. It has always sucked to be poor - today can hardly be different.
Posted by: Reactionary at June 29, 2012 10:29 AM (xUM1Q)
Congress could pass a law requiring everyone to become a muslim or pay a "tax."
Congress could pass a law requiring a one child policy and mandatory abortion of any extra children or pay a "tax."
Congress can pass any unconstitutional law but the fine (I mean "tax") for not obeying the law is upheld.
Yet, a bunch of so called republicans want to pass this ruling off as a victory.
Posted by: MrHobbit at June 29, 2012 10:29 AM (sbaXF)
Posted by: ADK46er at June 29, 2012 10:30 AM (tkY5j)
That's where everyone without health care ends up.
Only because the cost of health care is much higher than it was in the 60's ... when health insurance was uncommon, and ususally not needed ... why?
Health care is expensive due to malpractice insurance ... malpractice insurance is costly, and effectively mandatory, due to ... lawyers.
Tort reform: everyone knows we have needed it for at least 30 years. Cap damages and watch medical costs plummet.
That's one of the reasons why we need a mandate.
Wrong again. We see from the various European experiences that a mandate is a bad idea, and is unworkable.
Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 10:33 AM (6KG30)
Posted by: Sean Bannion at June 29, 2012 02:23 PM (sbV1u)
Yes
Posted by: Vic at June 29, 2012 10:34 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:35 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: Deval Patrick at June 29, 2012 10:35 AM (sv/s3)
That's where everyone without health care ends up.
That's more retardation packed into one sentence than I've seen since Benedict Roberts' 5th grade "What I did last summer" essay.
Health CARE is what one GETS in the emergency room, dumbshit. Health INSURANCE is what you are referring to. And, no, everyone without insurance doesn't go to the emergency room. Most pay cash for their care, which is no longer legal.
Ever hear the phrase, "Get a second opinion"? It emerged from people seeking ... health care, because most health care is not involving people bleeding to death and in need of emergency services. But getting second opinions is now illegal, too. Well, not strictly illegal, but only after I've paid for everyone else's health insurance (except illegals, they have the blessings of liberty in the AMerican Socialist Superstate).
You and your ilk are pathetic, despicable, destructive wastes of flesh. I can't wait for this nation to split so that you and yours are stuck leeching off of each other and penalizing each other to death. You and I share NOTHING and you are not my countryman. You are an alien leech.
I leave you with Samuel Adams appropriate quote (though Sam was far too nice):
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
You and your kind are stains on civilization.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 29, 2012 10:36 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: sexypig at June 29, 2012 10:37 AM (wWV5q)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:38 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: sexypig at June 29, 2012 10:38 AM (wWV5q)
"...taxation and regulation are close substitutes, so a limitation on one power matters little if the other power is still available. There is no practical difference between ordering an action, and taxing or fining people who don't do that same thing."
This is it in a nutshell. I can't get past this. As far as I'm concerned the reasoning behind Roberts' opinion ignores this link and is pure sophistry. Can't believe a guy this smart would travel down this road from a pure intellectual point of view.
Also warps my mind thinking that he may used this muddy reasoning to work backwards and arrive at a decision that would make the court appear non-partisan in one of the most important SCOTUS cases in our lifetimes.
And on that subject, when is the last time a liberal justice bent over backwards in a decision to appease conservatives who might be offended and out of concern that the court "appear non-partisan"?
Posted by: RM at June 29, 2012 10:39 AM (TRsME)
once republicans get into power they should pass a law. Everyone must own a gun or pay a tax. Then pass another law. Everyone must own a bible or be taxed. Then pass another law. Everyone must send their children to private schools or be taxed. Then pass another law. Everyone must XXXX.
Let SCOTUS handle those since they got us into this mess.
Posted by: retired military at June 29, 2012 10:39 AM (SElov)
Posted by: sexypig at June 29, 2012 10:40 AM (wWV5q)
Hello, kettle.
Posted by: Pot at June 29, 2012 10:40 AM (MySKM)
Posted by: Kim Priestap at June 29, 2012 10:40 AM (xDetv)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:41 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: DavidR at June 29, 2012 10:41 AM (myanI)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:42 AM (tyou3)
244 "Congress could pass a law requiring everyone to become a muslim or pay a "tax."
No, dude. That would violate the first amendment.
The opinion was about the limits of the taxing power. It does give the government the ability to violate other sections of the constitution.
Your wrong about the decision. The ruling said the mandate violated the commerce clause but the it can stand as a tax. Using that logic then why couldn't a law violate the first amendment but still have the "tax" still be upheld.
Posted by: MrHobbit at June 29, 2012 10:45 AM (sbaXF)
Posted by: BuddyPC at June 29, 2012 10:46 AM (KCuY9)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at June 29, 2012 10:47 AM (hAvUy)
248 Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 02:38 PM (tyou3)
If you think that's [malpractice insurance] the main reason health care is more expensive than it was in the 60s, you're insane.
Wrong again. The last 20 years have seen thousands of MD either leave private practice or stop providing services.
You guys never really address problems. You have a set of ideologically motivated "solutions" that you just relexively propose for everything "Tax cuts! Tort reform! Deregulation!"
How many wrong answers do you have? Your skill at displacement is weak ... ideological motivateion and relexive proposals are hallmarks of socialist apparatchiks who are afraid to think for themselves and simply desire power ... usually by maintaining the currrent problems.
Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 10:49 AM (6KG30)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:50 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: DavidR at June 29, 2012 10:52 AM (myanI)
OK.... so I was just looking at the ACA again...
Its primary funding mechanism, is this Tax (penalty) from uninsured people, the funds of which, will be used to fund the State Exchange where they subsidize Low income participants up to 50% of the cost of insurance...
Uh... so what happens IF everyone buys insurance? as they are supposed to? Then the funding is gone! but the subsidies continue?
Whole plan is smoke and mirrors...
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 29, 2012 10:55 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: realityman at June 29, 2012 10:55 AM (L2x1w)
It occurs to me that imposing a tax for failing to purchase a preferred product is the same in practical effect as giving a tax break of equal value for purchasing that product. Let's take the Smart Car example: if the Feds impose a "green tax" of $100 per year that you fail to own a Smart Car, and the car is expected to last 10 years, this has the same effect as giving you a "green tax rebate" of $1000 when you purchase the car. In either case you end up paying $1000 less in taxes if you accede to the Government's demands. Granted, the numbers line up better in hypothetical examples, but the principle holds in theory.
Roberts has actually maintained the status quo vis-a-vis the Federal Government's taxing power while placing a hard limit on future Commerce Clause-based regulation.
Posted by: Marty at June 29, 2012 10:55 AM (VPp80)
Posted by: realityman at June 29, 2012 10:57 AM (L2x1w)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 10:57 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 11:00 AM (6KG30)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:00 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: Marty at June 29, 2012 02:55 PM (VPp80)
sorry... but no... Roberts just held that it is OK to Tax INACTIVITY. This is a Tax on a lack of action.
Thats a whole different ballgame.
Posted by: Romeo13 at June 29, 2012 11:00 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:00 AM (tyou3)
Wrong. Not even close. You don't seem to understand the difference between an enticement and a penalty. Not least of which, they work on two totally different populations.
Go study some English. 4th grade is where you should begin.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 29, 2012 11:01 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:03 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: PJ at June 29, 2012 11:03 AM (DQHjw)
Posted by: Avi at June 29, 2012 11:04 AM (Gx3Fe)
Yes, I am aware of that issue. Now do you have any evidence to support your claim or not?
Then, in all intellectual honesty, you already have the evidence.
If you need more, try this link: http://preview.tinyurl.com/7axcu3w
Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 11:05 AM (6KG30)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:08 AM (tyou3)
Wait, what? They're freeloaders now?
I thought they were the "30 million blessed saints who really, really, want and need health insurance but don't buy it because they can't afford it. or they have a preexisting condition, or their mean old insurance company dropped them whehn they got sick."
Thanks for clearing that up, Deval..
Posted by: rockmom at June 29, 2012 11:09 AM (NYnoe)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:10 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: Ezra's Equal at June 29, 2012 11:11 AM (+74DP)
Posted by: realityman at June 29, 2012 11:12 AM (L2x1w)
Posted by: realityman at June 29, 2012 11:15 AM (L2x1w)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:16 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: Axel Foley at June 29, 2012 11:17 AM (+74DP)
Posted by: realityman at June 29, 2012 11:18 AM (L2x1w)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:19 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: Pamela H at June 29, 2012 11:20 AM (dwA73)
Posted by: realityman at June 29, 2012 11:22 AM (L2x1w)
This is an interesting difference between us.
... and it is about to get more interesting ...
I posted a CBO study saying that malpractice only accounts for 2% of health care spending.
You only sort of posted .... no link ... why?
Your response is to link to list of random malpractice settlements.
It's data
I'm relying on data. You are relying on anecdotes.
No, you provided a "quote". I provided a link to data.
That explains a lot about our respective worldviews.
True, as does this: http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yyudzn
It's a link to a 2009 CBO study, not a quote. The .PDF notes savings, drops in various costs, less cost due to less defensive medicine, etc. It's similar to your "quote", except that it's a link to an original source, and provides details that you ... did not provide. This PDF shows, among other things, a trend, a cost reduction trend, which you did not discuss.
Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 11:22 AM (6KG30)
They are raising revenue by taxing young adults who do not buy health insurance because they feel they didn't need it. Those 30,000,000 or whatever the number they cite is now.
Posted by: mali at June 29, 2012 11:24 AM (KoSNi)
Posted by: Ezra's Equal at June 29, 2012 11:24 AM (+74DP)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 03:08 PM (tyou3)
That's not what he wrote, you illiterate moron.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 29, 2012 11:25 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:26 AM (tyou3)
Yeah, fuck you, kettle.
Posted by: Pot at June 29, 2012 11:33 AM (MySKM)
Posted by: mali at June 29, 2012 11:34 AM (KoSNi)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:38 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:39 AM (tyou3)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:44 AM (tyou3)
Jay Carney said today that the Mandate is just a penalty and not a tax
"It's a penalty, because you have a choice. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?" Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One. President Barack Obama was on his way to Colorado to view the response to the worst wildfires in the state's history
Posted by: Colonel Pooteh at June 29, 2012 11:46 AM (nsT1z)
Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at June 29, 2012 11:50 AM (qwK3S)
These consolidated lawsuits were (I hope) just the fast and easy silver bullets from the states. They got blocked; now let's challenge the rest.
Where's the authority for all the rest of it - because otherwise taxation will allow the government to coerce you into anything. And if that question (power) is just a political (legislative) question, then we are well and truly fucked.
/If you can't ride the dead horse, at least you can beat it.
Posted by: Tonic Dog at June 29, 2012 11:52 AM (X/+QT)
Posted by: mpfs at June 29, 2012 11:52 AM (bJKyW)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 11:56 AM (tyou3)
Jay Carney said today that the Mandate is just a penalty and not a tax
"It's a penalty, because you have a choice. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?" Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One. President Barack Obama was on his way to Colorado to view the response to the worst wildfires in the state's history
Posted by: Colonel Pooteh at June 29, 2012 03:46 PM (nsT1z)
What a fucking dumbass. Ever heard of a tax on early withdrawal from an IRA? You can choose not to pay that, if you don't make any withdrawals. It's paid on your tax return and goes to the IRS. The government decided that it was important for you to leave those funds in until you retire, so you pay a 10% tax if you take anything out early.
And this isn't a transactions tax, either, it's a tax on you accessing your own money. It's a tax on behavior the government wants to discourage, just like the Obamatax is.
Posted by: rockmom at June 29, 2012 12:01 PM (NYnoe)
Yeah I know, I live in a fantasy world where the GOP isn't run by mongoloid sloths.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 29, 2012 12:01 PM (r4wIV)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 12:02 PM (tyou3)
It also says that tort reform could directly reduce the costs of malpractice insurance, resulting in 0.2 percent decrease in total health care spending.
realityman's link at #287 indicates a $650 billion reduction, roughly an 18.5X increase over the $35billion used by the CBO report.
Using a case-by-case study, what would the patient savings be? Figure a private practice MD, with an couple of nurses and an office manager, instead of a Director, a few senior administrators, etc. Suddenly, the 18X cost reduction looks like real money ... and with tort reform limiting lawsuits and payments, and no mandate, maybe most treatment suddenly becomes affordable.
The percent of health care spending that goes to malpractice payments has remained the same for at least the last couple decades, while total health care spending has dramatically increased (well beyond levels of inflation), so it's really hard to argue that's what's driving the increase in costs.
Start by reading the CBO report ...
It's hard to estimate the costs of defensive medicine--how do you know if a doctor ordered a test just because he was afraid of being sued, and how do you that test wasn't really necessary-
The CBO report seems to have access to such information, as does Patients for Fair Compensation ... probably others too.
-but I don't see any reason why defensive medicine would suddenly explode, or increase faster than the amount of actual malpractice payments.
Perhaps most MDs don't want to be put out of business by lawsuits ... so they practice defensive medicine ... they have to.
Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 12:11 PM (6KG30)
Posted by: rockmom at June 29, 2012 12:13 PM (qE3AR)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 12:15 PM (tyou3)
OK, but nobody wanted to be put out of business in 1960 or 1985 either. So why would the amount of defensive medicine have increased?
My link of random anecdotes provides the answer.
Who wants to be treated by an MD that just lost $5million malpractice judgement?
Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 12:17 PM (6KG30)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 12:17 PM (tyou3)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 12:19 PM (tyou3)
True. Who is correct?
More importantly, when is one correct, and when is the other correct (interms of percentage savings, not necessarily total savings)?
Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 12:19 PM (6KG30)
I don't really want to be treated by an MD that has a history of malpractice. But people twenty years ago didn't either.
Me neither ... even 20+ years ago (I was around then). But medical diagnostics are occasionally off (I'm living this, I've changed MDs), and this does not necessarily mean malpractice.
But to certain lawyers, it does.
Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 12:22 PM (6KG30)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 12:24 PM (tyou3)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 12:26 PM (tyou3)
We have no technologies that didn't exist or weren't widely used decades ago.
... new?
(2) In addition to using more procedures than we used, ...
This, then is defensive medicine. Is it necessary? Useful? Defensive ...
... we also pay a much higher cost per procedure. An MRI costs on average $1,080 here and $280 in France.
The French subsidize many things ... and they are going bankrupt. It's in all the blogs. My link of random anecdotes shows perhaps a hundred million dollars of cost .. on page 1. There are more pages.
Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 12:29 PM (6KG30)
You have no right to expect your doctor to be perfect, just competent.
Quite true. But under ObamaCare, could I have changed MDs?
Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 12:30 PM (6KG30)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 12:33 PM (tyou3)
Posted by: Paulie Carbone at June 29, 2012 12:35 PM (tyou3)
Yeah, there's no rule against that.
You might want to re-read the ~2000 pages of ObamaCare. There are many "TBD" items, and there are more than a few "panels".
We've already seen that "If you like your ____, you can keep your ____." is a lie.
Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 12:37 PM (6KG30)
Expensive technologies like MRIs are useful.
True
They're not just unnecessary procedures.
As you wrote this, you suggest that they are unnecessary.
Maybe we use a few more than we need, but most of the time you get an MRI, it's for some useful purpose.
Probably true, but it's the amount of "a few more than we need" that drives up costs.
Do one, and someone pays ... do not do it, and face a lwayer ...
Posted by: Arbalest at June 29, 2012 12:41 PM (6KG30)
Souter the same. Republicans are spineless.
What needs to happen here is that Roberts should be impeached. He is so concerned with his image and legacy, let's give him an indelible mark of Cain.
If Republicans had impeached either Warren or Souter, Roberts would NEVER have betrayed conservatives and the country.
The complete inaction by the Republican establishment on this betrayal demonstrates that ObamaCare will never be repealed.
Can anyone name a country where socialized medicine was repealed?
Posted by: Harold at June 29, 2012 01:07 PM (wmfzA)
Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2012 03:44 PM (Xb3hu)
"ItÂ’s about dealing with the freeloaders -- the folks who now get their care without insurance in high-cost emergency room setting."
In a word - NO.
If you choose not to purchase insurance, have a health situation and go to a doctor, or even use the emergency room, then pay the bill, you aren't a freeloader. The penalty or tax, whatever it is called, isn't only on those who fail to pay their bills, it applies to those who do pay their bills as well.
That isn't taxing freeloaders.
Posted by: Phil at June 30, 2012 09:50 AM (se1M9)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3268 seconds, 454 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: SFGoth at June 29, 2012 09:26 AM (dZ756)